One of the outcomes of that review was that we would no longer add awards to the database where there is no entitlement to post-nominals. This was a carefully considered change. The purpose of our database is to maintain an accurate record of the people we commemorate, where we commemorate them, and the information that is inscribed on headstones and memorials. In keeping with that purpose, awards will only be added to the database if it entitles the recipient to post-nominal letters after their name, as this detail is then engraved on the headstone or memorial.
With this being said, we will no longer add to casualty records awards such as Mentioned in Despatches, Long Service medals, Good Conduct awards, Efficiency medals, Commendations, etc.

In WW2 members of the British Armed Forces who did not survive an action where their exceptional gallantry was witnessed, could not have their gallantry recognised at the appropriate level with the exception of the Victoria Cross. Hence gallantry that resulted in a soldiers death that would have merited today a posthumous award of the highest order, was in WW2 only recognised with the award of a posthumous Mention in Despatches. This changed around the the time of the Falklands War.

We reviewed our policy on amendments to the Casualty Database late last year, which resulted in the decision that we would no longer add awards to the database where there is no entitlement to post-nominals. The purpose of our database is to maintain an accurate record of the people we commemorate, where they are commemorated and the details that are inscribed on headstones and memorials. The reason for the policy change was to ensure that the information we add to the database delivers on this purpose.

Please be assured that this decision is in no way related to any comparison of medals nor any assessment by CWGC of their significance. It has never been the role of CWGC to compile complete award lists. I appreciate that these details have been added in the past and I can understand your frustration at the change. However, this decision was taken after careful consideration to ensure the quality and accuracy of our records, which enables us to deliver on our core remit to commemorate First and Second World War casualties.

equality of treatment in death

Dear Mr Rogers,
22 July 2021
Thank you for your email of 8 July 2021 to the Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP, Secretary of State for Defence, regarding the recording of Mentions in Despatches in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission?s (CWGC) database. As you will appreciate, the Secretary of State receives many letters and emails and is unable to answer them all personally. Therefore, your email has been passed to the Defence People Secretariat within the Ministry of Defence (MOD), and I have been asked to reply.
As a nation we owe a great deal to all those who serve or have served in the British Armed Forces, and it is only right that they are held in the highest esteem by the people and Government of the United Kingdom.
I would like to explain that the CWGC is always keen to add to casualty information, but over the last few years requests such have these have escalated hugely. They have, therefore, had to prioritise some of the amendments and additions to their database that they have been requested to make, which has led to the change in policy.
In the past these additions have been updated manually in the database, but I can advise that the CWGC is now working on a way of automating these amendments in batches. This will help the Commission respond to requests of this nature in a more efficient and time effective way.
Officials in the CWGC would like to assure you that they will, of course, hold the information that you have supplied pending this automation and apologise for the lack of clarity in their previous response to you. As you will appreciate, this is currently work in progress and your information will be added to the database in due course.
I hope this information is helpful and explains the position. Thank you for taking the time to write.