# NATO Medal Authorized



## tomahawk6 (2 Jul 2006)

Will the CF award the NATO medal for Afghan ops ?

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1895717.php

Pentagon approves NATO Medal for soldiers

Times staff


The Defense Department has authorized qualified U.S. service members and government civilians to accept and wear the NATO Medal for participation in certain North Atlantic Treaty Organization operations that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.

The qualifying operations are:

• Eagle Assist, the NATO airborne warning and control system operation in the United States and the air space of North America, as tasked by the North American Aerospace Defense Command. 


To qualify, troops must have served in the area of operation for 30 continuous or accumulated days from Oct. 12, 2001, though May 16, 2002.

• Active Endeavor, the alliance operation in the Mediterranean Sea and air space above it involving escort duties, and the maritime surveillance, interception and boarding of suspected terrorist vessels.

The qualifying period in the area of operation is 30 continuous or accumulated days of service from Oct. 26, 2001, to a date yet to be determined.

• International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan operations that began June 1, 2003, in the joint operations area and continue today.

Eligible personnel are members of units and staffs that operated under NATO command or control while in the joint operations area for 30 continuous or accumulated days.

• Balkans — operations in the joint operational area of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Republic of Yugoslavia (including Kosovo), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania.

The qualifying period is 30 continuous or accumulated days of service since Jan. 1, 2003.

Equal to U.N. Medal

For U.S. service members, the NATO Medal has the same precedence as the United Nations Medal, but ranks immediately below the U.N. Medal when the recipient has been awarded both decorations. 

Subsequent awards for participation in other qualifying NATO operations will be indicated by a bronze star affixed to the NATO Medal suspension ribbon and service ribbon. 

Officials note that the medal presentation set may include a ribbon clasp denoting the qualifying operation. 

American service members can accept the clasp but cannot wear it.

“U.S. service members may wear only the basic medal or service ribbon,” according to a June 5 directive from the Army’s Military Awards Branch.

Because the NATO Medal is classified as an international service medal, permanent orders are not required for its award to soldiers.

Brigade and battalion S1 sections are authorized to enter the award in a soldier’s personnel file using the June 5 Military Awards Branch directive as the authority.


----------



## Franko (2 Jul 2006)

NATO has given out Non-Art 5 medals to Roto 3 Op Athena....however, the General Campaign Star has more rank and as such they can't wear 2 medals for one operation.

Now that being said, if Afghanistan becomes more stable and the issuing of the GCS and GSM isn't warrented anymore, the Art 5 or Non-Art 5 will probably suffice.

But I'm sure that will be far down the road....say 10 years or so.

My $0.02 worth.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jul 2006)

The CF will only allow 'one' medal to be awarded for a Tour, with one exception, the CPSM.  The CPSM is a generic Peacekeeping medal awarded to all who have completed a Peacekeeping deployment.  Canada is already awarding a medal for Afghanistan, so any NATO medal being awarded is not a recognized award by the CF; only the individual.  He would not be allowed to wear both medals. 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/honours_awards/engraph/med1_e.asp?cat=3


Not fast enough.......


----------



## Franko (2 Jul 2006)

;D


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (2 Jul 2006)

Going thru some posts today, its like you two are hooked by a bungee cord   ;D

Ahh, hard to seperate you Dragoons I guess.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jul 2006)

Trying to keep up your Recce Skills I see....  ;D


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (2 Jul 2006)

"recce"...whats that?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jul 2006)

I just thought that Canadian forces were involved in a NATO op that the NATO Medal might be awarded instead of a CF honor.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jul 2006)

It must be part of that 'arrogant' side of our culture, where our medal out trumps the NATO one.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jul 2006)

Maybe thats why our soldiers have so many ribbons. ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Jul 2006)

On Athena, which will set the precedent, it was decided that Canadians would not accept the NATO medal (not to mention not wear it) as (1) the GCS was awarded for service in theatre and (2) the "non-Article 5" medal was too generic and was not representative of the hazards of the theatre or the nature of the mission.  As (IIRC) MGen Leslie said at the time (not a direct quote) "When you're old and are pointing to your medals, how do you explain a "Non-Article 5" award?  It doesn't mean much." 

Similarly, service in Afghanistan has never been recognized by the CPSM - a "peacekeeping" medal...'cause it has never been a "peacekeeping" mission.

There's a thread on this somewhere, but I'm too lazy to find it.

TR


----------



## orange.paint (2 Jul 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> As (IIRC) MGen Leslie said at the time (not a direct quote) "When you're old and are pointing to your medals, how do you explain a "Non-Article 5" award?  It doesn't mean much."
> TR



Well not yet having the pleasure to deploy to Afghanistan I only have the medal that doesn't really mean much.Last time I checked I was deployed to provide security to the Bosnian people.To provide a presence in the region to prevent the area from going back to what it always has been doing. My wife sat at home for 6 months waiting for me to return.It was a busy mission when we went to brigade recce.And finally as soldiers I really don't find it appropriate to say "hey why am I going to Bosnia instead of Afghanistan?" why because it was a job to do,which must have been important to someone or why were we deployed?

but your right it doesn't mean much eh mgen Leslie....sir. :

my rant.


----------



## Franko (2 Jul 2006)

Ummm...I was there with you too on your Roto RCAC_011.

We did a job that was important enough....just different from the guys on Roto 0 Athena.

Every tour no matter where it takes place is important...if it weren't we would not be there.

I do agree....Non Art 5 for Afghanistan is not good enough for the hazards, but absolutely fine for BiH.

My $0.02 worth.

Regards


----------



## orange.paint (2 Jul 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> We did a job that was important enough....just different from the guys on Roto 0 Athena.
> 
> Every tour no matter where it takes place is important...if it weren't we would not be there.
> Regards



+1,just dont quite agree with that comment.

As (IIRC) MGen Leslie said at the time (not a direct quote) "When you're old and are pointing to your medals, how do you explain a "Non-Article 5" award?  It doesn't mean much." 
TR


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2006)

You've made your point.


----------



## Grunt_031 (2 Jul 2006)

> I do agree....Non Art 5 for Afghanistan is not good enough for the hazards, but absolutely fine for BiH.





> "hey why am I going to Bosnia instead of Afghanistan?"



They are two differant medals, just as there are different classes of the Article 5.

Non-Article 5 for Balkans






Non-Article 5 for Afghanistan


----------



## orange.paint (3 Jul 2006)

Cheers grunt my day is not wasted.I really didnt know that.

thanks


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Cheers grunt my day is not wasted.I really didnt know that.
> 
> thanks



....but no apology to the General though? Cause maybe he knew what he was talking about and you didn't.


----------



## orange.paint (3 Jul 2006)

Apparently you didnt either or I'm sure you would have filled me in.


----------



## paracowboy (3 Jul 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Apparently you didnt either or I'm sure you would have filled me in.


really pushing tonight, aren't you?


----------



## orange.paint (3 Jul 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You've made your point.



well he didnt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2006)

Sorry, my point was your constant whining and bad mouthing the General, not the content. The ice is cracking.


----------



## orange.paint (3 Jul 2006)

Basically all i said was I didnt know about a non article 5 for afganistan specific.And if there was just the one generic (which I had previously thought) thats would be a pretty crappy comment to make.But alas grunt who owns a medal mounting shop and knows quite a bit more than most of us on the subject added info to clarify.

cheers to grunt
and apology to mgen Leslie


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> *Basically all i said was I didnt know about a non article 5 for afganistan specific.And if there was just the one generic (which I had previously thought) thats would be a pretty crappy comment to make.*But alas grunt who owns a medal mounting shop and knows quite a bit more than most of us on the subject added info to clarify.
> 
> cheers to grunt
> and apology to mgen Leslie



Go back and read your own post. Every time you've been nailed tonight, you've tried to backtrack and say "that's not what I said/ meant" or some such. It would be better if you just thought about what you were going to say first, type it, read it and read it again. If it sounds bogus or demeaning, it probably is. I don't think you've had a good thing to say about anyone (other than Grunt) or anything all night. That comes suspiciously close to trolling, and you don't want to go there. Just my advise, you don't have to take it.


----------



## axeman (3 Jul 2006)

im not sure its like the navy getting the Afghanistan barand ribbon to the SWASM that they get , as opposed to the ribbon no bar that Tampa got . if the navy is still supporting the new mission why are the still getting the SWAsm and not any of the rest of the GSM ,etc?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2006)

There's a big thread on this already, maybe a couple, around here somewhere. Plug SWASM, etc into the advanced search engine and see what comes up. I think your specific question is answered there.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Jul 2006)

Wow...  I suppose I should have been clearer in explaining the context and we could have avoided the pissing contest.

Again, IIRC, the DComd ISAF was referring to the term "non-Article 5" as not meaning much and that it was hardly indicative of the hazards of the theatre or the nature of the mission.  This, to me, is hardly aimed at denigrating service in other theatres, although I'm quite happy to have the GCS.  As I pointed out in my original post, it is not a direct quote anyway.

I remember much rolling of eyes when this bureaucratic, uninspiring title was announced for the "new" NATO medal, despite the later addition of specific mission bars.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jul 2006)

Whats funny is that while the NATO medal is authorized bars are not.


----------

