Monday, December 21, 2015

A Far-Away Christmas

In the lead-up to Christmas - and other days of significance such as Easter, Mothers’ and Fathers’ days  - we are asked to remember our troops on duty overseas and their families. We should. It is something many with Butterworth service have experienced, even if we weren't bunkered down in the foxhole.

I had six Christmases at Butterworth in nine years in the seventies. 1971 was the first Christmas I had experienced without family. In those days there was no email, Facebook or Skype. The only connection with home was snail mail, and Mum spent a lot more on postage stamps than I did.

I signed up as a 16 year old and stayed for 20. The thing I have missed more than anything else in the years post service is the sense of community that existed in the RAAF. Nowhere was that more evident than Malaysia. Christmas 1971 I enjoyed lunch in the airmen’s mess. In the long established service tradition we were served by the officers and sergeants. Who knows where I ended up that night.

Next Christmas I was sharing a house off Green Lane. We organised a party on Christmas Eve - probably not many baggers present but singlies and girlfriends. After the party a group of us headed for Hillside to entertain the baggers with our caroling. I think the only carol we sang wished them a merry Christmas and demanded a liquid reward. I remember - rightly or wrongly - being greeted in the spirit of the season although we were still going strong at 3 or 4 in the morning. Christmas or not, most baggers opened their homes to singlies, a reflection of that sense of community. I can't remember what I did that Christmas Day - probably slept off the party. By the third year I was well on my way to becoming a bagger myself and I have no recollection of it.

I returned to Butterworth in July 1977, this time with two young kids. Christmas was different now that I had responsibilities. It was on this tour that I had my first experience of carols by candlelight. I remember sitting at the Hostie, probably outside, candle in hand. This trip of course Christmas was centered around family, although there were the parties and other social functions.

Christmas morning, 1979. The Donny and Marie poster dates it.

As I reflect on this time I realise that here was a side of service life that was, in many ways, unique. Normally we think of the serving member away from family, but many of us had those 2 or 3 Christmases in Malaysia with our immediate families. Yet there remained the separation. Thirty months relying on the postal service for communication with the extended family. Kids missing out on normal get-togethers with grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins.  Missing out on significant family events like weddings, special birthdays and funerals. For those of us with Malaysian wives it was of course a little different, but for them the separation came when they returned home.

Pressies, 1979

I remember the Christmas parcels from home, but they were chosen with postage costs in mind. Nothing too big and bulky.

It was a memorable time. Despite the separation it remains one of the real highlights of my life, made more memorable by that remarkable family that is the RAAF. For all that shared that experience with me, thanks for the memories. To those baggers and their wives that created a bit of home life - the home-cooked meals and open hospitality - thanks. And to all who have experienced that special time - and those who haven't - a Merry Christmas to you and your kin.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Australian Service Medals and Veterans’ Entitlements

Ken Marsh, 1 December 2015


Introduction


If my conclusions are correct, there are many Australian Military Veterans with eligibility to the Australian Service Medal (ASM) who are being denied the repatriation benefits to which they are entitled under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA). If my conclusions are incorrect I would like to be provided with details of the specific legislative and regulative instruments that demonstrates my error and not some garbled statement from the Ministers or other representatives of the Departments of Defense or Veterans’ Affairs that disregard context and only quote the legislation that suits their position


While the following comments are based on the ASM 1945-1975 both it and the post 1975 ASM are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same. Therefore my comments are equally as relevant to both.


The Australian Service Medal 1945-1975


The Australian Service Medal (ASM) 1945-1975 was Gazetted on 3 April 1995 to recognise service on ‘non-warlike military operations’ between 3 September 1945 and 16 September 1975. To date 14 clasps have been approved:


  • Berlin
  • FESR (Far East Strategic Reserve)
  • Germany
  • Indonesia
  • Japan
  • Kashmir
  • Korea
  • Middle East
  • PNG (Papua New Guinea)
  • SE Asia
  • Special Ops
  • SW Pacific
  • Thailand
  • W New Guinea


Service from 1975 onward until the recent introduction of the Operational Service Medal is recognised with the Australian Service Medal.


Under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, Section 6.F, ‘non-warlike service qualifies as ‘Operational Service’, thus attracting more generous benefits than defense, or peacetime, service. Non-warlike service attracts similar benefits to warlike service with the exception of a service pension and automatic entitlement to a Gold Card at 70. For example, those with peacetime service can receive a disability pension for arthritic knees if they can show that they climbed or descended 300 or more steps on most days of the week for 10 years and are diagnosed with arthritis within 25 years of doing so. For operational service it is suffice to demonstrate ascending and descending the same number of steps for a two year period without limit on the years that have past before the condition presents.


There is an inconsistency associated with the award in that at least some of the clasps are not recognised as ‘operational service’, as is also the case with some post 1975 service. This appears to be in contravention of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.


What the Minister Said


In July I wrote to my local member asking why some holders of the ASM are treated differently to others with regards entitlements. Recently I received a response from the former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson. I quote:


In describing service rendered by Australian personnel in PNG during the relevant period and the reasoning behind the decision to award the ASM in respect of this service, Mr Marsh refers to and quotes from the 1994 report of the Committee of Inquiry into Defence Awards (CIDA). Mr Marsh also makes reference to the criteria used by the Committee of the Review of Veterans’ Entitlements (the Clarke Review) to assess non-warlike service in 2003.


As you will appreciate, it is important not to confuse the differing objectives and terms of reference of the CIDA and Clarke Review. The CIDA was solely concerned with reviewing the medallic entitlements provided in respect of different types of and periods of service in the Australian armed forces. Conversely, the Clarke Review’s scope was confined to the classification of different periods of service in relation to eligibility for benefits under the Repatriation system. It is a long-established principle that the administration of veterans’ entitlements and medallic recognition for various types of service is entirely separate, and the recipient of a certain level of entitlement does not necessarily imply eligibility for a certain level of the other.


Thus, while the Directorate of Honours and Awards within the Department of Defence on occasion uses the term ‘non-warlike’ to describe service under peacetime conditions, this does not mean that the same service is regarded as as non-warlike service (or an equivalent classification) under the legislation administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. While the Clarke Review found that service in PNG during the relevant period often involved arduous and long patrols in harsh terrain, essential purposes of these duties was training and the readying of PNG personnel to form a national defence force after independence. The Review concluded that the duties undertaken by Australian personnel in PNG during this period should not be covered under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA).


The Minister’s statement must be seen in context.


WWII to 1993
According to Clarke, the VEA provides entitlements to personnel who have given three years continuous service ‘on or after 7 December 1972 until the terminating date, namely 7 April 1994’, when the Military Compensation Scheme was introduced. (Provisions exist for those with less than three years service who were medically discharged.) (Clarke, 13.25 - 13.35).


In 1981 provision was made for those on peacekeeping operations and this was made retrospective to the end of WWII in 1982. Hazardous service was introduced without a definition in 1986 to cover service that could not be classified as peacekeeping but was considered to have a similar level of risk. Determination of hazardous service was made by the Minister of Defence. Peacekeeping and hazardous service classification do not attract a service pension but do qualify for the more generous access to compensation entitlements.(Clarke 13.18 - 13.24).


Former Defense Force personnel with service prior to 1972 with peacetime service only are entitled to compensation on the same basis as Commonwealth Public Servants - according to Clarke. (Clarke, 13.27).


In the years between then end of WWII and 1993 the number of overseas deployments of Australian Defence Force (ADF) members had steadily increased. The system of determining conditions was drawn out, subject to negotiations between different departments, with the troops not being informed of conditions and entitlements prior to departure. Consequently inconsistencies between deployments arose. (Clarke 13.36 - 13.38).


Warlike and Non-Warlike Service Introduced
In 1993 the Government introduced the terms ‘warlike’ and ‘non-warlike’ service and these have been used by Defense since 1994. Definitions for both were inserted into the VEA, effective from 13 May 1997. (Clarke 10.8; 13.38). Non-warlike service is defined in S.5C (1) as ‘service in the Defence Force of a kind determined in writing by the Defence Minister to be non-warlike service.’ It embraces service where the risk is less than that of warlike but greater than normal peacetime service, including both peacekeeping and hazardous service. Casualties could occur but are not expected and the use of force is limited to self defence (Clarke 10.10).


A determination of ‘warlike’ or ‘non-warlike’ is now made by the Minister prior to deployment. The risk assessment includes an evaluation of military and environmental (health) threats. Clarke 13.40). However, as noted above, the terms ‘warlike’ and ‘non-warlike’ were inserted into the VEA in 1997, approximately three years after service under the Act terminated. Clearly this means that any determination of ‘warlike’ or ‘non-warlike’ service within the period to which the Act applies could only be made retrospectively.


Clarke’s Terms of Reference are contained in Volume1, Appendix 1 of the report. They are expressed thus:


Terms of Reference
The Government is committed to providing fair, consistent and appropriate benefits to Australia’s veterans.
Against this background, the committee will review and make recommendations on:


  1. The current policy relating to eligibility for access to VEA benefits and qualifying service under VEA; and
  2. The benefits available to disability compensation pensioners under the VEA.
These terms were expanded to review specific matters relating to access to benefits and perceived anomalies arising from past service.

The Committee of Inquiry into Defense Awards


CIDA, chaired by General Peter Gration, presented its report in March 1994. It was later described as ‘possibly the most significant of all reviews dealing with Defence medals.’ (Defense Honours and Awards and Commendations Policy Review, 8 February 2008). Its  terms of reference included:


  • Examine claims for recognition of categories of service.
  • Consider the need, if any, to introduce additional awards to recognise service in past defence-related activities of either warlike or non-warlike nature.
  • Make appropriate recommendations.


The Committee developed 10 principles to guide its deliberations.


Principle 8 stated:


Recognising that its work requires viewing past service through the eyes of 1994, the Committee believes that an appropriate benchmark considering hitherto unrecognised service between 1945 and 1975 is the terms and conditions currently attached to an award of the Australian Active Service and Australian Service Medals. Service rendered during this period which generally meets those terms and conditions should receive retrospective and comparable recognition.


It would have been well aware of Government policy regarding operational service and medals. A prerequisite for the award of an operational medal such as the ASM is the declaration of a military operation. This was reiterated in 2010 by the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General D. J. Hurley AC, DSC, in a submission to the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal  Inquiry into the Recognition of Members of Rifle Company Butterworth for Service in Malaysia between 1970 and 1989. To quote paragraphs 31 and 36:


(31) Current government policy on the nature of operational service and its relationship with medals is drawn from a 1993 Cabinet Decision which established the extant conditions of service framework. One of the key outcomes of the Cabinet Decision was agreement on new definitions for warlike and non-warlike service… Under the framework a nature of service declaration becomes an enabling driver for the associated conditions of service package. This includes non-financial conditions of service such as medals…


(36) The determination of the nature of service of a particular operation marks the point at which the Directorate of Honours and Awards can consider the appropriate level of medallic recognition for the operation in accordance with established policy. Under the conditions of service framework personnel deployed on warlike operations are awarded the Australian Active Service Medal with an appropriate clasp. Personnel deployed on a less hazardous, non-warlike operation, are awarded the Australian Service Medal with an appropriate clasp.

This policy is reflected in CIDA’s Principle 10:


Matters relating to honours and awards should be considered on their merits in accordance with these principles,and these considerations should not be influenced by the possible impact, real or perceived, on veterans’ entitlements.  


CIDA expanded on this principle:


Even though the terms of reference for the Committee preclude it from considering issues relating to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, the Committee remains conscious of the nexus between medals and entitlements in some cases. The Committee considers, however, that entitlement issues are a separate matter for consideration by the Australian Government and its agencies.


Again, in 2010 Lieutenant General D. J. Hurley AC, DSC, advised the inquiry into service at Butterworth, at paragraph 52:
The Governor-General cannot declare an operation or Defence activity to be warlike for the purpose of the Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 Regulations, or Australian Active Service Medal Regulations, and thus institute a clasp to either award, without the Government first agreeing that the service is or was warlike in nature and the Minister has declared this to be the case under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.


Both the AASM and ASM (45-75 and post 75) have almost identical regulations. The General’s statement could not be clearer - declarations of warlike and, by extension non-warlike service, can only be declared for the purpose of the VEA, thus entitling holders or those awards  to the associated repatriation entitlements.


Compare this to what the Minister said above. CIDA understood that its recommendations regarding category of service may well provide access to entitlements under the VEA if accepted. Recommendations for warlike and non-warlike service in its report, if accepted by Government, would provide more generous repatriation benefits to veterans.

CIDA Recommends the Establishment of the Australian Service Medal 1945-1975


CIDA recommended ‘the establishment of an Australian Service Medal 1945-1975 to recognise service in a prescribed peacekeeping or non-warlike operation for the period 1945-1975 where recognition has not extended previously through an award. (p. iv). Its rationale is provided on page 9. ‘Under the Imperial system, General Service Medals recognised service in minor campaigns and operations which did not warrant the issue of a separate medal.’ The AASM and ASM replaced the General Service Medal 1962. Different operations were shown by clasps attached to the medal ribbon. It was recommended that the ASM 1945-1975 should have similar terms and conditions to the ASM.


It will be seen from the following table that, to all intents and purposes, the two medals are one and the same.


ASM 1945-1975
ASM
Gazetted 3 April 1995
Gazetted 2 November 1988
From the Letters Patent, signed by Her Majesty and the Prime Minister:

‘WHEREAS it is desirable that there be instituted an Australian medal for the purpose of according recognition to members of the Defence Force, and certain other persons, who rendered service in non-warlike military operations’
From the Letters Patent, signed by Her Majesty and the Prime Minister:

WHEREAS it is desirable that there be instituted an Australian medal for the purpose of according recognition to members of the Defence Force and certain other persons who render service in certain non-warlike military operations’
Regulation 3: ‘The Governor-General, on the recommendation of a Minister, may declare a non-warlike operation in which members of the Defence Force were engaged at any time during the period that commenced on 3 September 1945 and ended on 16 September 1975, to be a declared operation for the purposes of these Regulations.’
Regulation 3: ‘ The Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister, may declare a non-warlike operation, in which members or the Defence Force are, or have been on or after 14 February 1975, engaged, to be a prescribed operation for the purposes of these Regulations.’
Regulation 4 (1): ‘The Medal may be awarded to:
(a) a member, or a former member, of the Defence Force; or
(b)   a person in a class of persons determined by a Minister for the purposes of these Regulations:’
Regulation 4 (1): ‘ The Medal may be awarded for service in or in connection with a prescribed operation.’
Regulation 4 (3): ‘The Medal may only be awarded to a person who fulfils the conditions for the award of the Medal.’
Regulation 4 (5): ‘The Medal may not be awarded except to a person who fulfils the conditions for the award of the Medal.’


Conclusion
CIDA was tasked to examine claims for recognition of service categories, consider the necessity of new awards to recognise service in warlike and non-warlike operations in the period 1945 - 1975, and make recommendations as appropriate. In so doing it reviewed past service against the terms and conditions applying to the Australian Service and Australian Active Service Medals. The Committee also recommended the creation of an Australian Service Medal 1945-1975 with similar terms and conditions applying to the ASM. In doing so it recognised the nexus between medals and entitlements in some cases.


The VEA defines non-warlike service as ‘a kind determined in writing by the Defence Minister to be non-warlike service.’ A non-warlike service classification entitles a member or former member of the ADF to more generous entitlements than those with peacetime service.


Both ASMs were established to recognise service in ‘non-warlike military operations’. Regulations for both medals require a declaration of a non-warlike operation by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Defence. Neither medal can be awarded to a person who does not fulfil the requirement of the regulations.


The award ASM 1945-1975 clearly recognises service in a declared non-warlike service operation that qualifies recipients for more generous entitlements under the VEA. These entitlements are clearly denied many veterans by the Department of Veterans’ affairs, the very body established to Parliament to administer Veterans’ entitlements.


The question is: Why?


References


CIDA – Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Defence Awards, 1994


Clarke, John, the Honourable, QC (Chairman), January 2003 Report of the Review of Veterans’ Entitlements


Defence Honours and Awards website, at http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/. Provides access to relevant Commonwealth Gazette documents.


Defence Honours and Awards and Commendations Policy Review, 8 February 2008


Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, to the Hon. Paul Fletcher, MP, Federal Member for Bradfield, 7 Sept 2015,Ref:M15/2359


Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986


Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General D. J. Hurley AC, DSC,  Submission for the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal, Inquiry into the Recognition of Members of Rifle Company Butterworth for Service in Malaysia between 1970 and 1989, 23rd June 2010.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

The Engine Run

I can honestly look my grandkids in the eye and tell them I have sat in the driver's seat of a jet fighter, capable of Mach 2 plus, and started the engine. Then I have pushed the throttle as far forward as it would go, lifted it to engage the afterburner, and pushed it to max, and felt the aircraft kick as I did so. If I left it at that and they asked no questions I'm sure they would stand in awe and tell all their friends about the exploits of their grandfather.

Running aircraft engines, either installed or in a test stand, was simply a part of the engine fitters, or Sumpies, job. And, of course, are part of a sumpy's memory.


Richmond, 1975
I will start with a Caribou story. Of course, names where used, may have been changed to protect the guilty. I was posted to 38 Sqn in March 1974. Flight Sergeant Bill was the instructor on our Pratt and Whitney R2000-7M2 Caribou engine conversion course and, like most sumpies,a great bloke.

After gaining experience on type it came time to be authorised to do engine runs. Again Bill was our instructor. He had drilled us well in the classroom on engine run procedures, so when he asked ‘What steps do you take in the event of engine fire’ we quickly spat out the answer. ‘Close the throttle, turn off the fuel pumps, turn off the magnetos.’

‘Wrong’, said Bill. ‘You take big ones and plenty of them. Firies are paid to put out fires, you’re not.’

Williamtown, 1970/71
My first posting after Wagga was 77 Squadron and during that time I spent 6 months in Engine Repair Shop (ERS), 481 Maintenance Squadron. Following servicing at 481 the Atar engine was taken to the engine run area for final testing prior to installation in a Mirage. But as flying squadrons also ran uninstalled engines sometimes this incident may have occurred any time.

Uninstalled engines were run in a purpose built stand. This was under cover, as it was at Butterworth. The engine was run from an air conditioned control room with a couple of fitters outside the room working on the engine.

Instead of referring to engine speed on the Atar as RPM, or revs, we used N - for number of revolutions. This was may have been a unique French thing, given the origin of the aircraft. In the test room N was indicated by a digital tachometer.

On one run I recall the sergeant in charge of the crew had a weakness for poker machines. On a visit to RAAF Edinburgh in South Australia, so it was said, this gentleman had ‘acquired’ a two cent poker machine from that bases’ Sergeants’ Mess. Be as it may, after all tests and inspections had been completed the sergeant would not let the operator shut down until he had lined up 7777 on the tachometer. For those whose lives have been sheltered, four sevens on a poker machine is - or was - a jackpot.

Darwin, 1970/71
Regular deployments to the top end were a part of life for members of 77 and 3 Squadrons. For ground staff this meant a long flight from Williamtown in the back of a C130 Hercules. Conditions were a little cramped as we were packed in around the ground support equipment, spares and other equipment considered necessary for the few weeks we would spend in the tropics.

The Mirage was not designed to facilitate engine repairs with the engine in situ. With some exceptions, any work requiring the replacement of an engine component required removing the engine from the air frame. Following removal and replacement a test run was required.

On this occasion we were landed with a repair job after the last sortie of the day - something that was not uncommon. We worked well into the night the finish the job and, some time after midnight towed the Mirage to the run up area. This night the Corporal took a turn in the driver’s seat. After all checks were completed he said - we had communication via cable plugged into the aircraft - ‘If its good enough for me to be out of bed at this time in the morning’ and pushed the handle through to full afterburner and let it stay there for a minute or two. Who knows if we woke anyone up that morning.

Butterworth 1971/74, 77/80
I have memories of Butterworth:

  • Swinging Sisters; and
  • Heat.

Swinging Sisters
The engine run area was surrounded by grass covered mounds as a noise control measure. The grass was regularly cut by local women that we called the Swinging Sisters. These women, covered from head to foot with scarves and sarongs toiled endlessly  in the hot sun. They were so  named because they worked with a scythe held in one hand, swinging it in a continuous circular motion over their heads and down to the next few tufts of grass.

We wore hearing protection and kidney belts - the latter to supposedly protect the fine blood vessels in our kidneys. Now a jet engine in full afterburner is one of the loudest things on the planet - well above the pain threshold. But this did not deter the sisters who continued their toil as we did ours. I often wonder what hearing loss they suffered, not to mention the wear and tear their shoulders must have endured.

The Heat
It goes without saying that Butterworth was hot. Part of the engine run procedure was to contact the control tower for the temperature of the day. This determined some of the settings we had to make on the engine. At Butterworth it was almost a waste of time as it hardly varied.

But the worse part of the job was sitting in the cockpit for the run. For some reason known only to the Mirage's designers the cockpit air conditioning only operated when the jet reached something like 90 miles per hour and we had to keep it closed. If my memory is correct, on my first tour no shade was provided and we could sit in the cockpit for perhaps up to an hour. While I have no knowledge of anyone passing out it must have been a real possibility. By the time the run was finished the shorts of the bloke in the cockpit looked as if they had just been pulled out of a tub of water. No wonder sumpies at Butterworth had a real thirst.

On my second tour a shade cloth had been erected but this only provided shade for a couple of hours in the middle of the day. Even then it made little difference. I remember one bloke taking a bottle of Coke into the cockpit one day. When he finished it he put it under the seat and it was forgotten until a pilot came back from a sortie complaining about a Coke bottle rolling around the cockpit.
,
Mirage Fuel Consumption
One check we performed was the fuel flow in full afterburner.  This had to be 60 gallons per minute - approximately 270 litres for those unfamiliar with Imperial measures. Now you can talk about the kick you get from your hot set of wheels when you floor the accelerator but it is nothing like the power surge when full afterburner is selected. And for that experience I thank the Australian taxpayer who footed the bill for that 60 gallons a minute.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Hot Pursuit

When I first got to Williamtown in 1969 if, on the way home, one picked up an undesired pursuer, if you could beat them to the gate and throw your ID at the guard on your way through you were home free. Sadly, the powers that be came to an agreement with the local constabulary allowing right of pursuit.

Now there is a story that goes something like this to do with pursuit, but not onto the Base. As the member involved was a serving member at the time it is unlikely to be Willy urban myth.
There was a F/Sgt (framie I think) who had a thing about Vincent Black Shadows. Mokka Clarke rings a bell. On this particular night he was on his way home to the Terrace when a member of the local constabulary wanted to talk to him about his riding style. So Mokka gunned it. He got home and was sitting in the lounge room when there was a knock on the door. The door was opened and there stood the man in blue.

Of course the good F/Sgt pleaded not guilty. 'Right', said the cop, 'show me your bike.' Only happy to oblige the cop was escorted to the garage. There stood three Black Shadows, all cold.
'I don't know how you did it' said the cop, 'but I know it was you.'

Meanwhile, around the back of the garage, out of view of the cop, stood a rather hot motor cycle.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

It was 1967, I was 16



Airman Apprentice Marsh, 1967

Like me, you have no doubt heard of the young men - boys really - who signed up for the 1st AIF, many of them lying about their age, because they saw it as a big adventure and a chance to see some of the world outside Australia. I can identify with that.

I was 16 when I joined the RAAF in 1967 - at the height of the Vietnam war. The appy (apprentice) intakes of 65, 66 and 67 were the largest in the history of the appy scheme (mine the smallest of the three with 184 enlisting for Wagga). We were boys supposedly between the ages of 15 to 17 at enlistment, although some were accepted that were a little younger. Towards the end of my 2 1/2 years at Wagga I filled in my posting preferences. They were designed to give me the best chance of getting overseas, and there were only two places for a Sumpy (engine fitter) to go - Vietnam or Malaysia. Back then, the idea of overseas travel was economically out of the reach of most.

I figured my best chance was Williamtown as that would almost certainly lead to Butterworth. Richmond and Amberley I thought would give a chance of Vietnam, depending on what unit I ended up in. Did I give any thought to the fact that I could get shot? None whatsoever.

As it was I got 77 Sqn Willy and a little over 2 years later 75 Sqn Butterworth. There may have been a few off my Intake got to Vietnam, but I do not know of any. I did have one mate who had his posting only to have it cancelled when Whitlam pulled the last few out.

As I reflect on that time I wonder what my parents and grandparents went through. I recall Mum on the phone once saying something to someone on the other end about me joining the RAAF, that I could end up in Vietnam, and if it was good enough for her son ...

And I remember Nana Marsh crying as I walked away after saying my goodbyes. At the time I thought 'How nice, Nana is going to miss me'. But now I wonder.

Nana's brother Roy served in France where he was gassed and seriously wounded - but came home. Their uncle George Davis was killed in France. Sadly George's mother and Roy's grandmother was a native of Germany. Nana also had a cousin, a Nursing Officer who died in a prisoner of war camp in Sumatra. Mum had two cousins, brothers, one who is buried in the War Cemetery just outside Port Moresby, the other died on the Burmese railway.

To their credit, my family let me go - they had to sign the consent forms. Joining the RAAF was all I wanted to do as a boy and they let me realise that dream, one that I have never regretted. But they must have had real concerns.

As it worked out in 20 years’ service I never came under fire. But given the volatility that was South East Asia at the time the outcome may have been different. I consider myself one of the lucky ones.

Revised, August 2016