ACSM - answers ??

Yes, absolutely, but MODMO in particular are adamant they are right, even when they are patently wrong!
I hope that's ^^^^^ not the case as I've just received an ACSM (2011) in the post today with the accompanying acknowledgement slip to sign. The eligibility date on the slip is incorrect/miscalculated (not by much -Mar 2003- so only about 9 years and 8 operational tours too early).


and the rank is incorrect (again not by much, it's stamped PTE when at the time stated I was a Full Screw and we don't have PTE's in my old unit anyway....they did manage to get it right many years before on my GSM so not sure what's gone wrong here?)

JPAC have confirmed that my ACSM (1994) is correctly listed on the system (though the date on the printout is incorrect)?

So all that being said any ideas what the procedure is to rectify the details on this ACSM (2011)?

I suppose contacting MODMO would be the obvious first move on my part but really I suppose my real question is 'are they likely to do anything about it'?
 
In order to help MODMO rectify this I now find myself in a position where I'm going to have to work out the 'correct' eligibility dates for both of my ACSM's so that they can re-issue the medals with the correct details on them.

Now I've read conflicting interpretations regarding the various GSM/OSM/Iraq Medal qualifying periods and whether or not the initial qualifying periods of each (or just one of the above medals) count towards qualification for the various ACSM's.

What recent experiences have you had with MODMO's interpretation of the DIN?

Off the top of my head I think the GSM '62 (NI) had a qualifying period of 30 days continuous deployment in theatre. There was some discrepancy however with regards to whether that initial 30 day qualifying period was counted towards the 1,080 days required for the ACSM (94) or whether it was discounted, potentially meaning that a person would need to have accrued 1,110 days in NI (or other qualifying theatre deployments) to meet the criteria for the ACSM (94) award.

That's how I understood it initially however with the introduction of the various OSM's for operations in Sierra Leone, Congo and Afghanistan etc. and the variation in the qualifying periods for each of those OSM's (of course just to complicate matters further the qualifying period varies not just from theatre to theatre but also from op to op within those theatres of operation) as is also the case with the Iraq Medal.

The eligibility date of the ACSM awards (and subsequently individuals details on the medals upon issue) could vary depending on how the eligibility date is calculated.

For ease of calculation do MODMO discount the initial 30 day qualification period of the first medal (GSM '62 for example) and then count the qualifying period of subsequent OSM's/Iraq Medal etc. or do they discount those qualifying days as well having determined what the qualifying periods were for the individual in question (eg. OSM Afghanistan qualifying period varies between 5 and 30 days depending on dates/ops etc. and the OSM Sierra Leone qualifying period varies for OP BARRAS, which I think was 14 days in theatre as opposed to OP SILKMAN which had a qualifying period of 30 days)

It seems ridiculous that I'm having to do all the leg work for this myself however it's the only way that I can see that the medals are able to be re-issued with the correct details on them.
 
The previous statement about MODMO being right even when they are wrong is proving to be just as painful as I'd hoped it wouldn't be. Another MoD example of their mistake, my fault?

Note: This isn't the case and granted is slightly off topic but in the unlikely hypothetical scenario whereby a soldier (lets say an EOD advisor or INT analyst as part of their role) deploys to each of the following operational theatres (Northern Ireland -pre 2008-, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Congo and Afghanistan) and is only in each theatre for coincidentally the 30 day medal qualification period (medal hunting piss take aside) that soldier has in effect spent 150 on ops albeit spread over several operational theatres.
Am I right to assume however that MODMO's interpretation of the ACSM DIN is that 'none' of those 150 days actually count towards the ACSM?

By way of contrast another soldier (let's assume he does exactly the same job as the individual above) but in this instance they deploy to Northern Ireland for the entire 150 day period. Would I be correct in assuming that apart from the initial 30 day qualifying period for the GSM '62 the remaining 120 days 'do' actually count towards the ACSM?

I'm trying to get my head around whether this is MODMO's interpretation of the DIN and if it is in fact correct. If so does that not indicate that those 150 days spent on ops in NI by default warrant more recognition than the other theatres?

Surely however that cannot be the case. Not due to any argument that one theatre is more dangerous than the other but because either one of those theatres can be swapped out for another and the situation would still be the same in that under certain circumstances a period of 120 days spent on ops in a single theatre is worthy of more recognition (counting towards ACSM) than 120 days spent on ops in several theatres.

I would have thought that days on ops are days on ops regardless of where they are.....Balkans aside of course but that's another argument all together.
 

Canuck_Jock

Old-Salt
The previous statement about MODMO being right even when they are wrong is proving to be just as painful as I'd hoped it wouldn't be. Another MoD example of their mistake, my fault?

Note: This isn't the case and granted is slightly off topic but in the unlikely hypothetical scenario whereby a soldier (lets say an EOD advisor or INT analyst as part of their role) deploys to each of the following operational theatres (Northern Ireland -pre 2008-, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Congo and Afghanistan) and is only in each theatre for coincidentally the 30 day medal qualification period (medal hunting piss take aside) that soldier has in effect spent 150 on ops albeit spread over several operational theatres.
Am I right to assume however that MODMO's interpretation of the ACSM DIN is that 'none' of those 150 days actually count towards the ACSM?

By way of contrast another soldier (let's assume he does exactly the same job as the individual above) but in this instance they deploy to Northern Ireland for the entire 150 day period. Would I be correct in assuming that apart from the initial 30 day qualifying period for the GSM '62 the remaining 120 days 'do' actually count towards the ACSM?

I'm trying to get my head around whether this is MODMO's interpretation of the DIN and if it is in fact correct. If so does that not indicate that those 150 days spent on ops in NI by default warrant more recognition than the other theatres?

Surely however that cannot be the case. Not due to any argument that one theatre is more dangerous than the other but because either one of those theatres can be swapped out for another and the situation would still be the same in that under certain circumstances a period of 120 days spent on ops in a single theatre is worthy of more recognition (counting towards ACSM) than 120 days spent on ops in several theatres.

I would have thought that days on ops are days on ops regardless of where they are.....Balkans aside of course but that's another argument all together.
I think the case of deducting initial medal qualifying time only began after 2011. If you look up all the JSPs on this medal, they initially say that all qualifying service is included, but then later editions change this. No reason is given why this change took place.

The DIN on the ACSM 2011 doesn't itself mention deducting qualifying time, but what it does permit you to do is to carry forward campaign service from the 94 to the 2011 medal. Trouble is, as I found out a couple of years ago, the MoDMO doesn't do that despite it saying so explicitly. Instead, they deduct initial qualifying service even pre-2011.

Why do MoDMO misinterpret the DIN? Maybe because they can? Because it saves them money? I think a lot of people are not getting the medal becasue of this.
 
MoDMO are currently deducting both qualifying time and R&R.
 
I'm trying to get my head around whether this is MODMO's interpretation of the DIN and if it is in fact correct. If so does that not indicate that those 150 days spent on ops in NI by default warrant more recognition than the other theatres?.

look at it this way the NI person have one medal then remaining days are towards the ACSM

The Sierra Leone, Iraq, Congo and Afghanistan would be medals earnt by 30 days qualifying

Why is the NI person having un proportional recognition - they only have 2 medals / the other person has 5 medals

Archie
 
look at it this way the NI person have one medal then remaining days are towards the ACSM

The Sierra Leone, Iraq, Congo and Afghanistan would be medals earnt by 30 days qualifying

Why is the NI person having un proportional recognition - they only have 2 medals / the other person has 5 medals

Archie
Eh?

Could it be that NI was one continuous Op and that Sierra Leone, Iraq, Congo and Afghanistan were separate and distinct operations?
 
I just find the whole ACSM qualifying criteria quite bizarre to be honest. If I had been tasked with coming up with the criteria for it my (extremely) simple squaddie brain would have just applied the logic of.....fellas (and ladies of course) deploy on ops and after 1,080 (or 720) days on ops expect to get your shiny new ACSM through the post.

All days deployed on ops should count, with none of this Balkans tours are excluded nonsense.

They are good to have after all. If nothing else the ACSM's are worth a few quid which could obviously come in handy in several years time when you're living in a cardboard box stinking of your own piss and necking your last can of Special Brew.
Your invisible friend will be listening to you rabbiting on about how ******* awesome you were in Afghan and how you got screwed out of your thoroughly deserved VC by some toffee nosed c**t of a Rupert that you just so happened to give a teenie-weenie slap during the post tour piss up.
 

RRV8

GCM
I just find the whole ACSM qualifying criteria quite bizarre to be honest. If I had been tasked with coming up with the criteria for it my (extremely) simple squaddie brain would have just applied the logic of.....fellas (and ladies of course) deploy on ops and after 1,080 (or 720) days on ops expect to get your shiny new ACSM through the post.

All days deployed on ops should count, with none of this Balkans tours are excluded nonsense.
I totally agree with you - good post.

IMO the whole system is crap and like everything in the MOD we have to make the simplest of things bloody complicated.

How hard can it be; one day on Ops should equate to 1-day on your ACSM qualifying sheet. Simple, plus the MOD/Army could then get rid of a few hundred fat people in admin thereby refining the budget - a win win if ever I've heard one.

If I'm truthful with you guys then I am still a bit miffed that the MOD thought very little of my many tours of the Balkens and that I only began 'upping my game' as a real operational warrior when I started shining some HQ seat in Iraq.

I'm off for a coffee now.

Cheers all,

R
 
With regards to the goalposts changing

JSP 761 edition 2 (May 2008) states:

THE ACCUMULATED CAMPAIGN SERVICE MEDAL (ACSM)
0809. The Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (ACSM) was instituted to recognise individuals who had completed more than 1080 days service towards the General Service Medal 1962 (GSM 62), since 14 Aug 69. It has been agreed that service qualifying for the OSM and other specifically designated multi-national campaign medals, instituted from 1 Apr 00, may also count towards the ACSM. Clasps are awarded for each additional period of 1080 days approved operational service.


Whereas JSP 761 Version 5.0 (October 2016) states:

The Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (ACSM)
8.12. The Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (ACSM) was instituted to recognise individuals who had completed more than 1080 days campaign service in addition to qualifying for the requisite campaign medal in each qualifying operational theatre. As of 1 July 2011 this medal was superseded by ACSM 11. The eligibility criterion for ACSM 11 was set at 720 days operational service in addition to qualifying for the requisite campaign medal for each qualifying operational theatre. Full details of this award are at Annex B to this Chapter.
 
has anyone ever challenged this office, probably via a Service Complaint?
 
I doubt it.

Personally I can't see how current or future JSP changes could justifiably be applied retrospectively.

If an individual qualified for a particular award at time of discharge (pre JSP 761 Version 5.0) then surely they still qualify irrespective of any potential future JSP goalpost changes?
 

Canuck_Jock

Old-Salt
I doubt it.

Personally I can't see how current or future JSP changes could justifiably be applied retrospectively.

If an individual qualified for a particular award at time of discharge (pre JSP 761 Version 5.0) then surely they still qualify irrespective of any potential future JSP goalpost changes?
You mean like it's written down in the current jsp??

8B.10. In addition to the criteria outlined in paragraphs 3 and 6 above, individuals with unrecognised qualifying accumulated campaign service (excluding service already recognised by the award of an ACSM and or bars, prior to 1 July 2011) are entitled to carry forward their service towards the ACSM 11 and subsequent bars as appropriate.

I think that little word "accumulate" is sort of important.
 
Currently MODMO are discounting all GSM/OSM and Iraq Medal qualifying days (30 days per medal) regardless of when those tours took place and they are not applying those days to their calculations for either ACSM 1994 or ACSM 2011. Therefore potentially 150 days of deployment days do not count.

My point being that the ACSM was initially introduced to recognise 36 months of deployment, however if those deployments are spread over several theatres of operation with each theatre being recognised by its own medal and the first 30 days of each of those deployments not counting towards the qualifying criteria for the ACSM, then the ACSM is in fact now recognising 41 months of deployment.

It's been made unnecessarily complicated when it could have/should have been very simple. Do the time on ops and get the gong.

They are not cheap medals and are worth several hundred pounds or more depending on whose it is. Obviously if a person has both ACSM's then that's double the value and a nice little safety net should a person fall on hard times in the future.
At the end of the day if an individual knew that they were owed a couple of hundred quid's worth of travel expenses but a clerk disagreed through their blatant misinterpretation of the rules and regs' then it's totally understandable that that individual owed the money would feel a bit miffed.

Same principle applies here.

On the simple issue of fairness there are countless hypothetical scenarios whereby one person would qualify whilst another would not.

I'll use the hypothetical example of Private Bloggs who after 13 years of the finest rear echelon'ary (not sure if that's even a word?) had found his niche in running the Post Bunk in one of the larger camps in Northern Ireland. Content with his barely 9-5 existence and with his 40 a day habit suitably taken care of by his NI pay he'd requested that he be allowed to remain in the postal position 'for the foreseeable future'. Naturally with him being such a fine specimen of a soldier his Commanding Officer reluctantly permitted the gopping little Hobbit to stay put.
As the units rotated through, Pte Bloggs stayed put. Naturally this provided the stability that his 8 pikey kids so desperately needed with the added bonus that it enabled his moose of a wife to continue with her semi-pro rugby career playing as prop for the Ballyfishfinger first IV's. Life was good for old Hobbity.
After just two roulemont battalion rotations he qualified for his ACSM. He would of course wear his Actual Commando Specialist Medal with pride in order to show his grand kids what an uber badass soldier he was back in the day.

By way of contrast we have the lad from 7RHA who after his first trip to Bosnia with his original RA unit realised that what he was doing was a bit shit.
He'd already smashed a 6 month tour in NI with the RA and that was much the same however whilst hanging around the baggage collection area at Aldergrove waiting to be told where to go next he then found himself chatting to a guy with a maroon chapatti on his bonce talking about how great being a borderline SF operator from 7 Para was.
Before he knew it he was also wearing a maroon chapatti and luminous jungle trops' whilst sat on the Kosovo border facing the very real prospect of having a ding dong with the Russian military over some political/strategic dumbfuckery regarding who's taking over some airport or other.
A short time later the same guy finds himself in Sierra Leone teaching former flip flop/mirror wearing reprobates how to conduct anti armour ambush drills (not really useful but still better than being sat at home).
The push into Iraq in 2003 wasn't too bad, at least in comparison to Afghan in 2006 but made all the better by the fact that once he got home there'd be a nice shiny ACSM medal waiting for him, just in time for him to get out of the Army and move on to do something different in civvy street.

Alas the maroon dealer of death was to find no ACSM heading his way or even several years later when the powers that be introduced a newer version that required less time on ops to qualify, as apparently his time in Bosnia didn't count, the shenanigans in Kosovo didn't count and of the 24 months that he was deployed in NI, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghan unfortunately 5 months of that didn't count as some clerk somewhere said so.....medal qualifying time you see said she.

Ok so that was a bit long winded but the point I was trying to make is that at the end of the day the Hobbit given in the example above did do the time and he qualified for the gong however I can't see how the 7 lad was deemed to not have done enough. My simple brain tells me that both should qualify.
 
I recognised that as I was writing it mate but no I've got no intention of selling any of mine.

As far as I'm concerned they form part of my children's inheritance and if they want to sell them when I'm long and gone then that's up to them.

Financially I'm sorted but I know that there are others that are not.
 

Latest Threads

Top