United Kingdom Armed Forces

‘Alfagrem Question’
Green paper
Office of the Vice-President of the Military Honours Committee

Lieutenant R.R. Napier CGC, DSO, MC

1
Page
Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3
1 Civilian Award by the Civilian Honours Committee ........................................................................ 4
2 Military Award by the Civilian Honours Committee ....................................................................... 5
3 Existing Military Award by the Military Honours Committee ......................................................... 6
4 Converted KCVS by the Military Honours Committee .................................................................... 7
5 Converted MC by the Military Honours Committee ....................................................................... 8
6 Converted DSO by the Military Honours Committee...................................................................... 9
7 New Single-Level Award by the Military Honours Committee ..................................................... 10
8 New Multi-Level Awards by the Military Honours Committee ..................................................... 11
9 Creation of a Dual Awards Track by the Military Honours Committee (Extreme) ........................ 12
10 Modification of All Existing Awards and Creation of New Military Awards (Extreme) ................. 13

2
Page
 Abstract
With the advent of significant military power existing outside of the traditional UKAF/UKSF structure
it has become readily apparent that there is a groundswell of opinion towards recognising these
individuals with the bestowal of an award of some kind issued by either the civilian or military
honours system.

Although traditionally all military awards have been used for internal purposes the possibility exists
of creating a specific award, order or decoration to be issued by the Military Honours Committee or
the Civilian Honours Committee. However, as the Civilian Honours Committee exists outside of the
purview of the Ministry of Defence this green paper can not speculate or give direction on what the
Civilian Honours Committee could or should do.

Understandably a universally liked option is very unlikely however this green paper will outline a
number of different proposals which could be utilised to come to a satisfactory conclusion with
regards to outwardly recognising non-UKAF/USKF members with a military or quasi-military award.
It is hoped that at least one proposal shall be largely acceptable to the Military Honours Committee
at large.

A set of non-binding criteria shall be used to measure the various proposals to ensure at least a
semblance of continuity between the proposals. Any comments made by the Vice-President of the
Military Honours Committee (VP-MHC) are ‘expert’ opinions only and can be seen as a guide to how
the proposal might exist in the real world if selected. The opinion of the VP-MHC in no way should
affect the way in which members of the Military Honours Committee grade each individual proposal.
The criteria for assessing each proposal shall include whether the military retains some agency in the
decision to award, if the awards process is relatively swift, if it is largely democratic (in the same vain
that the current awards process that the Military Honours Committee uses is upheld), if it clearly
delineates between military and civilian awards, if the end result produces an award of sufficient
stature and if it ensures that past and present members of the UKAF/UKSF are not excessively
demeaned by any new award. This list is not exhaustive however, and if any specific or new criteria
emerge during the evaluation process then these shall be included for completeness.

Although this green paper is clearly not intended to vastly reform and alter the structure of the
current military honours system it shall propose a number of extreme options in an attempt to
answer the ‘Alfagrem Question’.
3
Page
 1 Civilian Award by the Civilian Honours Committee

1.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
a civilian award by the Civilian Honours Committee.

1.1.1 Awarding agency

Civilian Honours Committee.

1.1.2 Type of award

Civilian order such as an MBE.

1.1.3 Comments
This proposal fails most of the criteria listed in the abstract. Although this idea clearly delineates the
civilian/military split inherently present in the current awards system it suffers from the lengthy
process innate in the civilian honours process and also the severely limited number of civilian awards
available to be given out. It also doesn’t take into account the military nature of the intent behind
this green paper. In the opinion of the Vice-President of the VP-MHC this proposal is not feasible.

4
Page
 2 Military Award by the Civilian Honours Committee

2.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
a military award by the Civilian Honours Committee.

2.1.1 Awarding agency

Civilian Honours Committee.

2.1.2 Type of award

An existing or new military award, order or decoration (details of which will be outlined in further
ideas).

2.1.3 Comments
As well as suffering from the failings highlighted in the first idea, and for not meeting most of the
abstract’s criteria, it also suffers from a blurred line between the military and civilian honours
systems. Just as the Military Honours Committee is not empowered to award the various levels of
the Order of the British eRepublik Empire, on principle it would be inappropriate for the Civilian
Honours Committee to be able to award military awards. The lack of suitable representation by
military figures on the Civilian Honours Committee is a problem given the military overtones of the
potential outcome. The Civilian Honours Committee may not have extensive enough knowledge of
the criteria levels of military awards and also experience in wielding them correctly. Due to the
above criticisms this idea is deemed unsuitable for use by the VP-MHC.

5
Page
 3 Existing Military Award by the Military Honours Committee

3.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
an existing military award by the Military Honours Committee.

3.1.1 Awarding agency

Military Honours Committee.

3.1.2 Type of award

An existing military award, order or decoration.

3.1.3 Comments
This idea clearly negates the above criticisms of the suitability of the civilian honours process for
military honours requirements. However, it creates a duality in the system with an award having two
differing sets of criteria, which could ultimately lead to unnecessary confusion. It would also create
an internal/external conflict which is hard to reconcile. All previous awards have been issued as a
result of (usually) months of hard work, dedication and sacrifice for the betterment of the
organisation and smooth-running of the UKAF and its antecedents. It could also be seen as belittling
existing award holders who earned their awards for perhaps months and months of merit based
achievement. Due to the ad-hoc nature of this style of award it would create a non-standard and a
pejoratively flexible set of criteria which may not always be applied consistently. In the opinion of
the VP-MHC the idea is feasible but more elegant solutions exist which successfully encapsulate the
overarching desire present in this idea.

6
Page
 4 Converted KCVS by the Military Honours Committee

4.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
a repurposed King’s Commendation for Valuable Service by the Military Honours Committee. This
proposal would remove the King’s Commendation for Valuable Service from the current hierarchy of
UKAF/UKSF awards.

4.1.1 Awarding agency

Military Honours Committee.

4.1.2 Type of award

King’s Commendation for Valuable Service (KCVS).

4.1.3 Comments
A modification of the KCVS for use as a new award fits much of the criteria established in the
abstract of this green paper. However the usage of a previously low-level award (even if this version
of the KCVS is given a new slate entirely) could tarnish any future award of the commendation. It
could be seen as an extension of the previous KCVS however much the Military Honours Committee
strives to disassociate the two. The commended may also feel slighted if it is seen in the same light
as the previous KCVS. In the opinion of the VP-MHC the KCVS does not sufficiently pass the stature
test given in the abstract, especially if it is seen as a continuance of the old KCVS. Given these
stumbling blocks it is the opinion of the VP-MHC that this idea is unsuitable for use.

7
Page
 5 Converted MC by the Military Honours Committee

5.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
a repurposed Military Cross by the Military Honours Committee. This proposal would remove the
Military Cross from the current hierarchy of UKAF/UKSF awards.

5.1.1 Awarding agency

Military Honours Committee.

5.1.2 Type of award

Military Cross (MC).

5.1.3 Comments
The repurposing of the MC meets most of the criteria mentioned in the abstract. Similar to the
modification of the KCVS a redesignated MC suffers from much the same pitfalls, but for slightly
different reasons. Contrary to the KCVS the MC has a certain gravitas towards it and the list of
recipients is much smaller, however rather than alienating the potential recipient it may serve to
frustrate the sensibilities of previous holders. Given the current landscape however many of the
previous holders of the MC are inactive or are of sufficient maturity to understand a repurposing of
the award. Due to this conclusion the VP-MHC believes this idea is feasible.

8
Page
 6 Converted DSO by the Military Honours Committee

6.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
a repurposed Distinguished Service Order by the Military Honours Committee. This proposal would
remove the Distinguished Service Order from the current hierarchy of UKAF/UKSF awards.

6.1.1 Awarding agency

Military Honours Committee.

6.1.2 Type of award

Distinguished Service Order (DSO).

6.1.3 Comments
The DSO meets all of the criteria set out in the abstract. The DSO may indeed be more suitable than
a reconstituted KCVS or MC as the DSO is a high-level award which has been awarded relatively
frequently since its inception and has a less illustrious history. An opportunity exists to have a ‘dual
role’ order with perhaps two concurrent criteria running alongside each other. For example it could
be given for ‘services to the United Kingdom Armed Forces’ for those attaining the required rank
and/or position requirements and for ‘services to the United Kingdom’, ‘for services to the military
of the United Kingdom’ (or similar) for those in which we wish to honour from outside the
UKAF/UKSF. As it is an order, similar in some respects to the pre-existing civilian Order of the eBritish
Empire, it is the opinion of the VP-MHC that it is the most suitable out of the KCVS, MC and DSO
repurposing options. In the opinion of the VP-MHC this idea is feasible.

9
Page
 7 New Single-Level Award by the Military Honours Committee

7.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
a new military decoration by the Military Honours Committee.

7.1.1 Awarding agency

Military Honours Committee.

7.1.2 Type of award

George Cross (GC) (if this proposal is selected then the actual award used will be decided outwith
this green paper).

7.1.3 Comments
If the creation of a GC is implemented in a manner similar to the current host of awards then it
meets all of the criteria established in the abstract. The usage of the GC would put it on an even
footing (although perhaps slightly below the Victoria Cross for eRepublik usage) satisfying the
stature test in the abstract. However, the bar for a GC would have to be similar in nature (as the two
criteria sets are vastly different) to the difficulty required for the award of a VC for it to achieve
some sense of parity. However, given the stringent requirements needed to award a GC, this may
create an artificial barrier to those who do not have the funds of some prolific ‘tanks’ who would be
eligible for a GC. Even with this potential issue it is the opinion of the VP-MHC that this idea is
feasible.

10
Page
 8 New Multi-Level Awards by the Military Honours Committee

8.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
a series of new multi-level decorations by the Military Honours Committee.

8.1.1 Awarding agency

Military Honours Committee.

8.1.2 Type of award

George Cross (GC), George Medal (GM) and potentially the King’s Gallantry Medal (KGM) (if this
proposal is selected then the actual award used will be decided outwith this green paper).

8.1.3 Comments
A multi-layer system retains the military/civilian split stated in the abstract and the positives
attributed to the creation of the GC proposal above also carry over to a multi-layer system. Further
to the singular GC style award it allows a grading of contribution to the United Kingdom and its
military efforts, with ‘supertanks’ such as Alfrgrem being eligible for the GC and lesser ‘tanks’ being
eligible for the GM. In addition to the GC/GM graded approach, the KGM should perhaps be
established as the bottom rung of a civilian recognition scheme by the UKAF/UKSF. Although this
green paper’s purview extends only to the creation of an award to recognise non-members of the
UKAF/UKSF it would be remiss not to potentially create a third-tier for members of militias and the
UKAF/UKSF at the same time. Under this proposal the KGM would only be eligible to those members
of UKAF (and perhaps junior members of the UKSF) and those in militias below a level determined by
the Military Honours Committee. This would allow the recognition of new players, or those players
who have rejoined the game after a break, who have sacrificed their economic potential in order to
further the military goals of the United Kingdom. However a multi-level system has several
drawbacks. It necessitates a clear delineation between the GC/GM/KGM with perhaps arbitrary or
unclear and confusing criteria if drafted incorrectly. It also increases the inherent amount of
bureaucracy involved in awarding a new set of awards alongside current military awards using the
same system. Even given these negatives it is the opinion of the VP-MHC that they can be resolved
and absorbed into the current system with a minimum of fuss and disruption. Due to the graded
nature of this proposal and the creation of comparable civilian awards to existing military awards it
is the opinion of the VP-MHC that this idea is the optimum compromise for this green paper.
11
Page
 9 Creation of a Dual Awards Track by the Military Honours Committee
(Extreme)

9.1 Premise
That significant military prowess outside of the UKAF/UKSF structure is rewarded by the bestowal of
existing multi-level decorations of the Military Honours Committee.

9.1.1 Awarding agency

Military Honours Committee.

9.1.2 Type of award

An existing military award, order or decoration.

9.1.3 Comments
Although on the surface this idea may seem similar to the third idea in this green paper it differs
markedly with a deliberate creation of multiple criteria for every award. This proposal would
institute as a matter of course two separate ‘tracks’ of criteria for one award, so for example there
would be a set of criteria for those in the UKAF/UKSF for the MC and one for non-members of the
UKAF/UKSF based upon other factors. Previous recipients of the awards would be grandfathered in
to the new system, even if their contributions do not quite match any new established criteria. This
style of system would be quite confusing and contrary, with varying criteria without any overlap or
similarity between UKAF/UKSF and non-UKAF/UKSF criteria. Further to this it would create a much
less efficient and harder to manage level of bureaucracy. For these reasons the VP-MHC deems this
proposal as being unfeasible.

12
Page
10 Modification of All Existing Awards and Creation of New Military Awards
(Extreme)

10.1 Premise
That significant military prowess of any nature, regardless of military affiliation, is rewarded by the
bestowal of existing but reappropriated military awards and the creation of a new set of awards for
internal military use.

10.1.1 Awarding agency

Military Honours Committee.

10.1.2 Type of award

An existing military award, order or decoration for general use and a new set of awards for internal
military use.

10.1.3 Comments
A complete overhaul of the awards system creates several rather gargantuan problems which either
through logisitical, bureaucratic, or historic frailties should not be taken lightly. Completely
overhauling the system would require all existing literature to be entirely rewritten from scratch, the
Wiki completely remodelled, new designs would need to be created, new criteria established for
both sets of awards, new and grandfathered recipients of awards wouldn’t match along and a whole
host of other difficulties are present. Due to the complexities of completely reforming the honours
system this idea is deemed unfeasible by the VP-MHC at this moment in time.

13
Page