The BRIXMIS Association submission was an agenda item at the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) meeting on 9 July 2025. Following discussions, the Secretary was directed to prepare a letter to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) for its consideration. The findings of the sub-committee will be communicated to the Association in due course.

As the noble Lord was advised in 2023, cases regarding historic medallic recognition are a matter for the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) to consider, rather than the Ministry of Defence. In 2020, the AMSC considered the issue of awarding a clasp to the General Service Medal for service on BRIXMIS, and the recommendation of the Sub-Committee was that BRIXMIS did not meet the criteria for medallic recognition. This recommendation was accepted by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee).

Any further review of this issue would be for the AMSC to consider, should additional evidence be submitted, which fulfils at least one of the following criteria: significant new evidence has become available that had not been considered previously; facts relied upon during the original decision-making process are shown to be unsound; the original decision appears to be manifestly inconsistent with those for other similar campaigns; or the decision appears to have been taken for reasons which have nothing to do with risk and rigour.

Should the AMSC agree that any such new evidence was sufficient to alter their original decision, they would make a recommendation to the HD Committee for further consideration and, if agreed, submission to His Majesty The King for His Majesty’s final approval.

The requested information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

The Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) adheres to the same principles and rules for defining risk and rigour as set out in the independent Military Medals Review (2012). As per paragraph 12 of the review ‘the idea is that campaign medals should only be awarded where deployed personnel have been exposed to a significant degree of risk to life and limb, and to arduous conditions, in excess of what might be expected as part of normal service duties, whether deployed or in the home base’. There will always be a subjective element of judgement involved when determining what constitutes appropriate risk and rigour, on a case by case basis[1].

The AMSC’s recommendation on the case for retrospective medallic recognition for all those who participated in the British Nuclear Test Programme 1952 - 1991 was not to award a military service medal. This followed the AMSC’s assessment of the evidence provided against the longstanding framework for military medallic recognition. The HD Committee reviewed the conclusions reached by the AMSC and was in agreement that this programme does not meet the criteria of risk and rigour required for a military service medal.

However, despite the decision not to award a military medal, and after considering inputs from other stakeholders, the HD Committee felt that there was a case for alternative recognition outside the remit of AMSC. The service given by the nuclear test veterans - both military and civilian - was significant in providing the UK’s nuclear deterrent during the critical early years of the Cold War.

The HD Committee agreed that an official commemorative medal, which recognised both military and civilian contributors to the nuclear tests, would be most appropriate. This commemorative medal was approved by His Majesty The King.

[1] The full report can be found on GOV.UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61398/Medals-Interim-Report-July-12.pdf

The Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) adheres to the same principles and rules for defining risk and rigour as set out in the independent Military Medals Review (2012). As per paragraph 12 of the review ‘the idea is that campaign medals should only be awarded where deployed personnel have been exposed to a significant degree of risk to life and limb, and to arduous conditions, in excess of what might be expected as part of normal service duties, whether deployed or in the home base’. There will always be a subjective element of judgement involved when determining what constitutes appropriate risk and rigour, on a case by case basis[1].

The AMSC’s recommendation on the case for retrospective medallic recognition for all those who participated in the British Nuclear Test Programme 1952 - 1991 was not to award a military service medal. This followed the AMSC’s assessment of the evidence provided against the longstanding framework for military medallic recognition. The HD Committee reviewed the conclusions reached by the AMSC and was in agreement that this programme does not meet the criteria of risk and rigour required for a military service medal.

However, despite the decision not to award a military medal, and after considering inputs from other stakeholders, the HD Committee felt that there was a case for alternative recognition outside the remit of AMSC. The service given by the nuclear test veterans - both military and civilian - was significant in providing the UK’s nuclear deterrent during the critical early years of the Cold War.

The HD Committee agreed that an official commemorative medal, which recognised both military and civilian contributors to the nuclear tests, would be most appropriate. This commemorative medal was approved by His Majesty The King.

[1] The full report can be found on GOV.UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61398/Medals-Interim-Report-July-12.pdf

Cases regarding historic medallic recognition are a matter for the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) to consider.

In 2020, the AMSC considered the issue of awarding a clasp to the General Service Medal for service on the British Commander-in-Chief's Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany (BRIXMIS), and the recommendation of the Sub-Committee was that BRIXMIS did not meet the criteria for medallic recognition. This recommendation was accepted by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. Any review of this issue would be for the AMSC to consider in the first instance.