bayley

BAYLEY Graeme Maurice

Thanks to the press and a 4 RAR veteran, another Ex-Service Organisation "Executive" has been exposed. It was not enough that this man served as a genuine veteran, he felt a need to wear more than his legal entitlement regarding war service medals and to lie about how long he spent in Vietnam. May he reap the recognition he deserves.

Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance - August the 18th 2001, guest speaker - Graeme BAYLEY voiced to all in attendance: " It is time for Vietnam veterans to move on, the past is the past. There is no point dwelling on it"
A very easy thing for him to say because he didn't endure what the majority of Vietnam Veterans had to endure and by this we mean a long time away from family and loved ones in a strange country embroiled in a nasty war.

BAYLEY was a senior member of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia (VVAA) and the several hundred Vietnam Veterans in attendance heard his advice echo around the pillars of the most sacred edifice in Victoria - after all - he was an invited guest speaker, and why would anyone doubt his credentials?

In March 2006 ANZMI was contacted by several irate members representing the 4th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, these veterans had been handed newspaper clippings of BAYLEY's appearance as guest speaker five years earlier, and the target of their anger was BAYLEY wearing a medal he had no entitlement to - and still wears - the "Vietnamese Campaign Medal" awarded to veterans who served more than six months "in-country" -

"on the front line within 5 months"
The period between his enlistment and arrival in Vietnam was 8 months which disproves this statement. His claimed 5 month time frame was a virtual impossibility for anyone of his rank and Corps. BAYLEY enlisted (was conscripted) on 1 May 1968 and arrived at 1ARU, Nui Dat, Vietnam, 6 January 1969. He spent 40 days at this Reinforcement Unit, a notably long period of time. 20 to 22 days was the norm for Infantrymen who displayed any ability since capable reinforcements were always required by the Battalions as soon as possible.

"serving 9 months with the 4th Royal Australian Regiment"
He was posted to the 4th Battalion on 18 February 1969 and began his return to Australia on 19 May 1969. The length of this posting was 3 months and totally denies his fanciful claim. Had he served on Operations Federal, Overlander and Stafford with the Battalion, he could have spent a total of 58 days in the bush but we don't have any definitive information on his actual duties within the unit. Not all Infantrymen posted to Battalions went outside the wire on warlike operations.

"He found fitting back into life at home was easier for him than others"
BAYLEY departed for Australia with 4RAR aboard HMAS SYDNEY on 19 May 69....why?
His total Vietnam service was 4 1/2 months, a lot shorter than the majority of Infantry tours which were 1 year. The reason for this is unknown but what is known is that some Infantry posted to Battalions took the option of an early return with their unit while many more were posted out to other units to complete a normal tour.
There is no indication that BAYLEY suffered from any disability which may have prompted this early return, it would appear that he took up the option.

ANZMI contacted BAYLEY and requested he clarify the situation - as he is a genuine veteran he was given ample opportunity to prove or disprove his illegal wearing of the medal - he neglected to reply to our correspondence and now will remain on the CASES page as evidence that the Veteran Community will not suffer this type of offender.
Should he offer an apology to the relevant people and units, it will be treated as all others have been.

If not for the alertness of a 4 RAR veteran this charade would have continued unreported. BAYLEY would be fully cognizant that he commits an offence against the "Defence Act" each time he "medals up" - here is an opportunity for the VVAA/RSL to recommend charges be laid....or will they close ranks around him?

Graeme BAYLEY - you have been exposed by your own battalion mates as a poseur and a fraud - may you reap what you have sown.

Allegedly there is a lot more to this man and his dealings with Veterans that cannot be published by us. We look forward to some interesting guest book entries about Mr Bayley.

Updated 27 Aug 06

GRAEME BAYLEY wrote...."Would you please consider removing me from the cases file" Our answer is yes, we will, but only if a majority of Veterans agree that we should.

BAYLEY sent the following email as a reply to correspondence from us. In it, he offers information on how he came to be in possession of the Vietnamese Campaign Medal and offers an apology.

He was asked to reply before 6 July 06 but his first email reply of 30 June was not addressed correctly and obviously wasn't received by us. Further emails, one with the same apology and an admission as to "the error of his ways", were sent to the correct address after his story was published on 15 August 06. We contacted him to make sure we had copies of every email he sent to either correct or incorrect email addresses.

We find it very difficult to believe that a person who has been involved with ex-service organisations as long as he has would be unaware of the requirements and protocols surrounding this award.

"Given to me by a regular Army mate" The Australian Government didn't give him one but his mate did so he feels he can legally wear it. What a bloody ridiculous statement.

He was "the Secretary of the Melbourne Sub Branch of the VVAA for about 8 years" and apparently not once in that time did he become aware of the requirements for the award nor the protocols.

"Because I took no notice of protocol, or learning what was right or wrong with medals I now apologize............"

Pull the other one Mr BAYLEY.

He also said that he has no idea where the statement about him being on the "frontline" 5 months after his call up date came from. It was published in the newspaper, he would have read it and anyone else who read it would reasonably believe it came from him, if it was an incorrect quote he'll have to take it up with the editor and have a retraction published.

Nowhere in his emails does he fully address this statement from the news article "serving 9 months with the 4th Royal Australian Regiment"
He asked us why he would lie about his time spent in Vietnam when there is a possibility of being found out because the Vietnam Veterans nominal roll is freely available.

The answer to this is, in our experience we've found that lies about war service became very difficult to explain after the first nominal roll was published in 1996, wannabes were caught in a trap of their own making and had to carry on with their charades. They're sometimes executives within ex-service organisations, as BAYLEY was or still is, and more often than not they resort to threats of litigation against anyone who questions them.

With regard to his ,now admitted, very short tour, he did tell us that he asked a 4RAR Company Clerk where he would be posted to next as the Battalion was leaving Vietnam, he was informed that it was Battalion policy to take married veterans home at the completion of the tour and therefore he had no choice in the matter.

We looked into this supposed 4RAR policy and can find nothing to support his claim. This explanation is more than highly unlikely and we stand by our version of events which is that he opted out of the war while others fought on.

This is from another email and should be taken into account when considering this person's apology.

"I am a genuine man who is proud of my service, albeit short, in Vietnam with 4RAR.I am now aware of the error of my ways in wearing the Vietnam medal, however it was not worn with any intention to deceive, but to be a constant reminder of an event that took place between me and a very close colleague in a contact with the enemy"

The issues here are:

1...For many years, possibly 19 years, BAYLEY wore the Vietnamese Campaign Medal while never having served the required 6 months in Vietnam to be recognised by the Australian Government for the award. An offence punishable by law.

2...By wearing this medal and by allegedly making false statements to the press, he enhanced his war service in the eyes of others by claiming to have been fully trained and "on the frontline within 5 months" and also by extending his 3 months in a fighting unit to 9 months.

His apology is made to any member of the veteran community who is genuinely upset by his behaviour.

Any Veteran of any conflict who wishes to personally accept or reject his apology should email us at information@anzmi.net

Please provide your correct name and where served as only replies from genuine Veterans will be taken into account, if you had your name removed from any nominal roll, your reply will be ignored, sorry. Your city or town should be noted as well, thank you.

Replies from ex-service organisations will count as one reply. Personal details will not be published, your anonymity is assured.

If you can still read this on or after 1 October 06, you'll know the result of our poll.

______________________________________________________________________

Dated 30 June 2006 but incorrectly addressed, re-sent by BAYLEY and finally received at ANZMI ON 22 August 2006.

Dear Sir

In response to your letter received today I put the following to you for consideration.

I heard about this complaint about a month ago and was waiting for the people involved to to approach me about it, as I would have expected fellow VV's to do, however, as usual they have opted to take the cowards way out.

I know the original problem was started by a group of people involved with the Goulburn Valley Veterans Service Office.

I would be very surprised if the complaint originated from the 4RAR Association as I am not a financial member, and cannot remember ever being one and also I hace attended Charlie Company reunions since 1987 and my medals have never been an issue.

I would like to give you some of my history before I go into the wearing of the medal in question.

I have never been an executive member of the GVVVA, however I was it's welfare officer and pension officer for some time.

I was in fact the Secretary of the Melbourne Sub Branch of the VVAA for about 8 years before moving to Shepparton. Again, medals were never an issue there.

I am extremely disappointed in this matter as I have prided myself on the work I have done in the area of welfare and pensions for veterans. I have worked tirelessly for their benefit and have had a lot of success in both the pension and welfare areas both here and in Melbourne and it hurts me to think that fellow vets don't have the courage to face me, but prefer to take this course of action. It hurts even more that they have chosen to hide behind the 4RAR Association's banner.

I had, until a month ago never given much thought to my medals and the dates stated in your letter are correct and therefore I am not entitled to wear the Vietnam one.

I can remember this medal being given to me by a regular army mate who was in my section. He also gave me a miniature of the same medal. I put these medals, plus the original one in a draw and did not see them again until the Sydney welcome home in 1987.

With the passing of time and concentrating on other work in the veteran community, the wearing of medals did not rate highly with me.Obviously, I was wrong.

Because I took no notice of protocol, or learning what was right or wrong with medals I now apologize unreservedly to any member of the veteran community who is genuinely upset by my behavior.

In closing, I congratulate you on the work you do and assure you that I never intended to deceive anybody.

I trust this explanation is satisfactory.

Yours sincerely

Graeme Bayley

This is published in the public interest, particularly that of the Vietnam Veteran Community. All information presented here is fact and the truth. Reports from private citizens are supported by statements of fact and statutory declarations