Letters to the Editor

Issue carries weight
Looking back for ACB

HOW TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED

Issue carries weight

I WRITE in response to the letters of Lt-Col Andrew Crompton and former SSgt Norm Maraldo (Army, February 23).
I was in the Army but now work as a civilian in a Defence medical facility.
My role has opened my eyes to the serious issue of obesity in the ADF. I often find that members are not concerned, or try to dodge appointments to avoid being confronted with this medical problem.
HD206 states that BMI is merely a guide and cannot be used to decide whether a member should be medically downgraded. Members with a BMI of 30-34.9 are classified either uncomplicated obesity – meaning it does not affect service requirements or deployability – or complicated obesity – unable to meet all service requirements.
The decision to class someone complicated or uncomplicated is made using other factors such as cholesterol counts or the ability to pass BFA/CFA and so on. Members with a BMI higher than 35 are automatically classified complicated, with further investigation required.
The aim of this directive is early prevention of complications such as heart problems and diabetes. Excess body weight also puts increased pressure on lower limbs, which can cause other problems.
Be thankful Army doesn’t have the same policy as RAAF where a member with a BMI higher than 29.9 must have an Annual Health Assessment (AHA) within three months before a PFT. If this applied to Army, there would be more than a few members requiring an AHA twice a year.

Gillian Blake
Health Services Flight
RAAF Base Wagga Wagga.

TOP

Looking back for ACB

• I READ with great delight that the Army has introduced the Army Combat Badge (ACB) to finally recognise the invaluable contribution of non-Infantry Corps personnel who participate in warfighting on warlike operations.
  It was with great disappointment I read that the ACB is not retrospective and will be awarded from AMTG1 in Iraq and SFTG in Afghanistan onwards.
  I question the rationale behind this decision. There is a clear precedence for retrospectivity for recognition of previous operational service. What makes the ACB so different?
  Is it the fact that Lt-Gen Leahy stated that Australian soldiers were involved in a new type of warfare involving combined arms teams where “infantry, armour and combat service support are essentially doing the same job”?
  Given the CA’s penchant for military history, do I really need to point out that the Australian Army has been conducting combined-arms warfare since World War I.
  I fail to see why those personnel in AMTG1 or SFTG are more deserving than Secdets – not to mention Interfet, Somalia and Rwanda.
  There will be generations of military personnel, serving and retired, who are deserving of this badge, but once again will be let down by senior Defence bureaucrats driven by cost margins and personal whims.
  Capt Amanda Dewar
  DIntTC
  Kokoda Barracks
  
  REFERENCE “Fire for effect” (Army, February 23) – thank you Maj Scheidl, I agree wholeheartedly with the long-overdue recognition of non-RA Inf personnel with the award of the ACB if they have been “assigned to a combat team or battlegroup and participate in warfighting against an armed enemy on warlike operations”.
  However, it is disappointing to note that the ACB will not be awarded retrospectively, unlike the Infantry Combat Badge that, when introduced in 1970, was awarded retrospectively for some 20 years.
  Working on that precedent, the ACB should be awarded as far back as 1986, thereby recognising personnel who have served in Cambodia, Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor and pre-2005 Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few.
  I’m sure that if the Army could do it in 1970 without the aid of computers and PMKeys, they can do it in 2006.
  Maj Scott Gills
  ACSC
  Weston Creek
  
  I AM writing to find out if the actual issue of the ACB to eligible personnel has begun. It was announced last year that the members of AMTG1 were entitled at the completion of their tour. As far as I know they are still waiting to be issued with the ACB and the Iraq Campaign Medal.
  I understand the ACB has only just been created and there are delays in Honours and Awards with the issue of campaign medals and so on, as well as problems with quality control. But, as yet, there is still no word on the actual issue of the Iraq Campaign Medal or ACB to AMTG members.
  With the restructure of DPE that is about to happen, will the process for issuing honours and awards be sped up?
  Cpl Michael Cameron
  3CSSB
  Lavarack Barracks
  
  Major Carl Johnson, Acting SO1 Personnel Policy, responds:
  THE purpose of the ACB is to recognise the service of non-infantry members of the Army, force-assigned to a combat team or battle group and who participated in warfighting against an armed enemy on warlike operations.
  The ACB may also be awarded in exceptional circumstances to members who engage in warfighting on non-warlike operations, for example while on a peacekeeping mission.
  The issue of retrospectivity regarding the ACB was considered by CA but set aside for the time being in the interests of swiftly implementing the award and ensuring that those eligible members who are serving, or have recently served, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elswhere receive their ACB as soon as possible.
  Note DI(A) PERS 119-1, Army Combat Badge, has been signed by CA and is available on the Defweb.
  

TOP

HOW TO GET A LETTER PUBLISHED

Preference is given to letters of fewer than 300 words. Letters will be rejected if they are too long, abusive or can be answered by the author's unit.

They will be published only when they include the author's name, unit, location and contact number.

Send letters to: The Editor, Army newspaper, R8-LG-037, Russell Offices, Canberra, ACT 2600; or email: armynews@defencenews.gov.au