The ‘convenient’ loss of papers within the Australian awards system, depriving him of the medal he so clearly deserves, as justified by the US representations, is worrying.

NOT a comment on the particular case, but some context.

Up until about 10 years ago, the Australian awards system was the British one, and passed through British endorsement. As an independent country, this is not a desirable state of affairs, and so the Australian government created an Australian awards system, civil and military, thus stopping an historical anachronism.

The Vietnam war causes a double problem for the many Australian veterans and much understandable bitterness. Not part of the US system, as Mark 12’s said, they often do not receive US recognition, for several reasons.

As Britain did not fight in Vietnam there is remarkably little understanding in the British ‘corridors of power’ of the Australian role and history, causing the type of problem outlined.

Finally, politicians and the military are always reluctant at best to go back to review decisions under a previous system or just seen as ‘difficult’. Although the Vietnam war’s veterans are much more recognised in Australia than they were, it remains a controversial subject politically. Making a retrospective new Australian award now to a Vietnam vet would cause the politicians problems; and we know how good they are at sliding out from under.

The new Australian version of the VC for Australian service people has yet to be awarded, I understand.

Australian Military Awards