Notice

Advisory Military Sub-Committee- Recommendations (2025)

Updated 4 June 2026

The independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC), which has an independent Chair and independent Membership, offers advice to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (the HD Committee) on historic military medals claims, including cases which may not have been previously considered or where new evidence has emerged. The HD Committee is the principal body with responsibility for making recommendations on honours, awards, and medals.

The AMSC have made recommendations on the following cases:

Decisions of 28 March 2025

• A request for eligibility for the General Service Medal (GSM) 1962-2007 with Northern Ireland Clasp be extended to Northern Ireland’s Civilian Armed Patrol and its successor, the Northern Ireland Security Guard Service.

This Sub-Committee initially began considering this request in 2023 and it was the first case to be reconsidered and concluded by the AMSC in 2025. The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee’s position was that the evidence of risk and rigour had been met and therefore, a positive recommendation could be made in respect of the claim and extension of eligibility of the GSM 1962-2007 w/NI clasp, to include this cohort.

• A request that consideration be given to retrospectively awarding the Nigerian Independence Medal (NIM) for British Service personnel attending the ceremonial lowering of the Union flag and raising of the Nigerian flag on the occasion of granting independence on 1st October 1960.

The Secretary’s research revealed that eligibility for the NIM had been specific and limited to members of the British Armed Forces who were, on 1st October 1960, serving in an official, seconded capacity with Our Royal Nigerian Military Forces. Therefore, the request not supported.

• A request for a retrospective Campaign medal for Service in Belize from 1972 to 1994 be established for all British military personnel deployed between those dates, to this location.

Research discovered no evidence of direct conflict involving UK Service Personnel serving in Belize between those dates. Additionally, that after Belize gained Independence in 1981, border tensions markedly eased. Therefore, the request was not supported by the AMSC.

Decisions of 9 July 2025

• Request for a Korean War GSM 1918 with post-armistice clasp, intended to be a peacetime follow-on from the British Korea Medal (1950-1953), during the post-Korean war period, until 1957. 

The Secretary advised that a thorough, bespoke review undertaken in 2013, by Brigadier Parritt, essentially answered the same request. The AMSC accepted the Secretary’s summary of the authoritative ‘Parritt Review Paper’ (2013) on this matter and the request was therefore not supported.

• Request for the enlargement of eligibility for a Campaign Medal with South Arabia Clasp, for service in Aden between 1960 and 1964, to fill a perceived ‘medal gap’. 

The request was particularly focused upon alleged errors in the casualty analysis, which had been completed by Brigadier Parrit, in his response to a similar, previous claim, in 2013. However, official casualty statistics obtained reflected the findings of the 2013 ‘Parritt Review’. Therefore, the claim was not supported, for the reasons as stated in the previous 2013 review.

• Request for a bespoke BRIXMIS campaign medal for uniformed Service in Berlin, during the Cold War period, 1946-1990. 

The AMSC had received several previous requests for a BRIXMIS medal. The most recent submission took the form of a document of more than two hundred pages. As a result, the author was asked to identify the specific content that constituted new evidence, previously unseen by the AMSC. The Sub-Committee noted that the requestor’s clarification highlighted the inclusion of a new photograph of a BRIXMIS operative gathering intelligence from a Soviet tank with an accompanying narrative. But, thereafter, little new evidence had been identified for consideration. Additionally, it was noted by the AMSC that the perceived similarity with the Nuclear Test Medal was an unsuitable comparator, as the latter is a commemorative medal (and therefore devoid of any risk and rigour considerations), rather than a campaign medal. Therefore, the request was not supported.

The AMSC made the above recommendations to the HD Committee during 2025, which were each subsequently accepted.

The AMSC continues to recognise the commitment of campaign groups and individuals to ensuring that cases such as this are considered through a formal process. More information regarding the role of the AMSC and the process of evaluation can be found in the Sub-Committee’s Terms of Reference.