Long wait for Long Service Medal
Having achieved 15 years service in February, I anticipated being presented with a Defence Long Service Medal.

Going by anecdotal evidence, I was anticipating that it would be received some time around mid-year.

As if it isn't bad enough having to wait 15 years and six months for a 15-year award, I heard a rumour that these medals were no longer 'automatically issued' as a matter of course and that individuals now had to apply for them.

Thinking this couldn't possibly be true, and not wishing to perpetuate a rumour, I went to the source.

I sent an e-mail to the Directorate of Honours and Awards (DHA) and received a response soon after confirming this as fact.

The reason given to me was that PMKEYS lacked the functionality to provide them with details of those achieving 15 years service.

So, I followed their advice and fired off a form AC694 (Application for issue or replacement of Australian Defence Force Medals).

I received an acknowledgment card about one week later stating that my request was receiving attention.

Unfortunately, also attached to this card was a label reading: "Due to the large volume of letters currently being received by ADF Medals, there may be a delay of up to 12 months before you can expect a reply to your enquiry".

I remember a couple of years ago there was a big push towards non-financial recognition of service. Receiving a 15-year award at the 16.5-year mark appears to fly in the face of that.

My biggest concern, I only learnt of this requirement by following up on a rumour. I'm yet to see anything promulgated advising the greater population of this 'new' requirement.

POWTR Mick Barrett,
(email address supplied).

Category ranking queried
I have read several articles within Navy News now about LSET J Hammond whose life was tragically taken ANZAC Day 1999 whilst trying to assist a robbery victim in Sydney.

I served with 'Happy' on HMAS Hobart during the period 1991 until 1993 as an ETP sailor.

'Happy' was also an ETP sailor. In all the articles I have read about him, they all disclose he was a LSET by the time he paid off.

As an ETP sailor, he would have been a LSMT(E) sailor (unless he was able to change over to the ET category during this time).

If I am wrong then I would appreciate being corrected, however as a good friend of his and workmate during this period, then I believe it should be corrected that he was a LSMT(E) sailor as above.

He was a true gentleman who has a lovely family and should be respected as such.

It was a deep shock to all those of us that new him and is still hard to believe that a person of his character has gone leaving those behind him.

I have been unable to contact his widow Sharon since the tragedy (to not knowing his address details at this time). If possible I request that my details be provided to her.

POMT(E) GR Dhu,
HS RED CREW
Ph: 02-9083 2277; mobile: 0411-289 822.

Pelorus caption provides breakfast polarity
I was disappointed to notice in the July 22 edition of Navy News the following mistake.
In the photo spread on page eight ("Our Navy at work") a caption states: "A member of the ship's company on the 'polaris' on the port bridge wing of HMAS Manoora".

I am certain that either the star or missile of the same name would not fit on Manoora's bridge wing.

The word should be 'pelorus', but to be pedantic, even this is incorrect.

The instrument depicted, is a bridge wing compass repeater.

A pelorus on the other hand is an instrument dedicated to determining the relative bearing of an object with respect to the ship's heading, although relative bearings can certainly be deduced from a compass.

On a historical note, the pelorus was originally carved on the wooden decks of sailing ships as an aid for the OOW.

On a humorous note, the caption did provide entertainment at the family breakfast table.

LEUT Mike Ashby, RANR
(email address supplied).

Indefatigable about HMS Implacable
The carrier in the photo in the Navy News dated June 10 is NOT HMS Indefatigable as advised in Navy News dated July 8.

The carrier is HMS Implacable, a sister ship to HMS Indefatigable. The photo was taken circa December 1944/February 1945.

The differences between the two ships are small but significant.

They are:

1. The top row of 11 Carly Floats alongside the island on HMS Indefatigable were stowed flat and on HMS Implacable were stowed at an angle.
2. The boat stowage on HMS Indefatigable was one deck higher than HMS Implacable.
3. HMS Implacable has a starboard boat hold beneath the forward AA mounts just forward of the island. HMS Implacable did not have this.

I hope this settles the discussion.

Malcolm Hampton,
Through Life Support Manager,
Project Bushranger.