Who Dares Wins ….The Truth: Award Paddy Mayne the Victoria Cross
The Issue
A GLOBAL CALL FOR HISTORICAL TRUTH: SECURING THE VICTORIA CROSS FOR LT. COL. ROBERT "PADDY" MAYNE
SECTION 1: THE PETITION MANIFESTO & GLOBAL CALL TO ARMS
To Our Fellow Veterans in the United States, Modern Special Operations Forces, Military Historians, and Citizens Across the Globe:
This is a global petition for historical equity, military honor, and archival accuracy.
As a veteran of the United States Armed Forces and an independent student of Unconventional Warfare history, I am addressing my fellow American veterans first and foremost. For over a century, the United States and the United Kingdom have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of global liberty. In the dark days of World War II, our shared victory was forged through relentless courage, shared sacrifice, and the revolutionary operational doctrine created by the British Special Air Service (SAS).
The tactical victories of the Western Allies in Europe and North Africa were heavily reliant on the audacity of the 1st SAS Brigade. Their actions saved thousands of Allied lives—including American service members—and established the very template for modern Special Operations Forces across the NATO alliance.
It is a matter of profound national and military honor for us in the United States—and across the free world—to ensure that those from the United Kingdom who gave everything for our collective freedom are accurately recognized in the historical record.
This petition is not born of regional sentiment, political maneuvering, or internal UK service politics. It is an independent, objective mandate brought by an American military researcher with no personal or political agenda. When a forensically documented combat record reveals that one of the greatest battle commanders in modern warfare was excluded from his nation's highest decoration for valor due to 1940s-era administrative friction, personality conflicts, or clerical oversights, the global military community has a moral obligation to speak up.
SECTION 2: THE HISTORICAL DISCREPANCY & THE CASE FOR VALOR
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair "Paddy" Mayne (1st SAS Brigade)
Lt. Col. Paddy Mayne was not merely a soldier; he was a founding architect of Special Operations warfare. From the deserts of North Africa to the final push into the heart of Nazi Germany, Mayne personally destroyed more enemy aircraft on the ground than any fighter ace in the Royal Air Force, executed unprecedented deep-penetration raids, and demonstrated battlefield command under fire that remains legendary.
Despite accumulating four Distinguished Service Orders (DSOs), his formal recommendation for the Victoria Cross—the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy within the British Honours System—was downgraded to a DSO following his actions in Oldenburg, Germany, in April 1945.
The Objective Forensic Audit: The "Table of Discrepancies"
Our ongoing research audit cross-references verified battlefield After-Action Reports (AARs) from the European Theater against successful Victoria Cross citations awarded to contemporaries during the same operational period (1944–1945). The data demonstrates:
1. Operational Parity: Mayne’s documented actions at Oldenburg—rescuing trapped troops under concentrated, heavy enemy fire, clearing enemy positions single-handedly, and leading from the front under extreme danger—equaled or exceeded the actions for which contemporaries received the Victoria Cross.
2. Administrative Finality vs. Historical Truth: The 1945 administrative finality decisions relied on incomplete battle logs and were heavily influenced by post-war bureaucratic inertia and command-level personality friction.
3. Institutional Liability: Allowing an 80-year-old administrative error to persist damages the integrity of military history and sets a precedent that bureaucracy can overrule proven battlefield valor.
SECTION 3: RECENT SUCCESS & THE MOMENTUM OF HISTORICAL RECTIFICATION
This campaign mirrors the proven advocacy blueprint successfully executed stateside for Sergeant First Class (Retired) Jorge Otero Barreto ("The Puerto Rican Rambo").
SFC Otero Barreto—a close personal friend and mentor who completed five combat tours in Vietnam, sustained five combat wounds, and earned 38 military decorations—faced similar decades-long administrative hurdles regarding the Medal of Honor. Through persistent, evidence-backed advocacy, public petitions, and legislative engagement, his case reached the highest levels of national leadership. Recent formal requests from U.S. leaders—including Senator Gary Peters of Michigan and retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Jack Bergman—asking Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to reconsider Otero Barreto for the Medal of Honor prove that grassroots momentum combined with unyielding historical proof can break through bureaucratic inertia.
We are taking that exact winning framework and expanding it globally to ensure Lt. Col. Paddy Mayne receives the Victoria Cross he so clearly earned.
SECTION 4: CHRONOLOGY & ITEMIZED LIST OF OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS
Below is an itemized breakdown of the formal communications and administrative requests that have already been submitted to sovereign governing bodies, military archives, and regimental associations regarding the case of Lt. Col. Mayne.
Item 1: Formal Submission to the Cabinet Office & DSIA (Submitted June 3, 2026)
Recipients: Cabinet Office Honours Secretariat, Public Correspondence, FOI Secretariat, and Defence Security and Industry Association (DSIA).
Purpose: Formal request for an administrative audit of WO 373 files to investigate post-war clerical oversights and systemic discrepancies.
Item 2: Inquiry to the SAS Regimental Association & Historical Bodies (Submitted June 3, 2026)
Recipients: SAS Regimental Association Board, Archives, Mars & MinervaEditor, and the SAS Historical Society.
Purpose: Highlighting the institutional liability of archival silence and calling on the Regiment to proactively champion its founding commander's true record.
Item 3: Formal Advocacy Statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly (Submitted June 3, 2026)
Recipients: Northern Ireland Assembly Secretariat and Kellie Armstrong, MLA (Strangford).
Purpose: Requesting regional leadership to challenge the Ministry of Defence on 1940s-era administrative inconsistencies. (Resulted in guidance from Kellie Armstrong, MLA, advising escalation to Westminster MP Jim Shannon for formal MoD questioning).
SECTION 5: FULL WORD-FOR-WORD COPIES OF OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
(These full transcripts are included directly in the petition updates to provide total transparency to all signers and historians.)
TRANSCRIPT 1: Cabinet Office & DSIA Formal Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: honours@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, freedom-of-information-request@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, secretariat@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, correspondence@dsia.gov.uk
Subject: Formal Submission: Administrative Audit Regarding the 1945 Honours and Awards process (Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne)
I am writing to submit a formal request for an administrative audit of the records pertaining to the honors and awards issued to Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne during the 1944–1945 period. This request is not a petition for sentiment; it is a formal request for a forensic administrative review. My objective is to identify and resolve systemic discrepancies between the documented operational record of Lt. Col. Mayne and the criteria applied for the Victoria Cross during the post-war review cycle.
It has long been noted by historians and military analysts that the exclusion of Lt. Col. Mayne from the Victoria Cross constitutes a significant outlier in the context of the SAS Brigade's documented operational achievements. My preliminary review of the archival framework suggests that this exclusion may not have been the result of a lack of merit, but rather an administrative failure—potentially involving the suppression, misplacement, or clerical oversight of primary After-Action Reports (AARs) and witness testimonies that should have been included in the 1945 consideration.
The historical record indicates that Lt. Col. Mayne's tactical leadership and personal valor were foundational to the success of the SAS in the European Theater. The absence of the Victoria Cross in his record is viewed by the global Special Operations community as a failure of institutional consistency.
The integrity of the British Honours system rests on the principle of consistency and objective merit. When the record shows that personnel performing actions of comparable or lesser scope—often under the same operational conditions—received the Victoria Cross, while an individual of Mayne's documented record did not, it creates a lingering historical inconsistency. The Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence are the ultimate stewards of this record, and therefore bear the responsibility for clarifying these archival gaps.
I am requesting that the Secretariat conduct an audit of the "WO 373" (Recommendations for Honours and Awards) files pertaining to the SAS Brigade in 1945. Specifically, I seek to understand if the "new evidence" threshold can be met by re-evaluating documents that were either omitted from the original citation process or subject to administrative bias at the time of processing.
This audit should specifically examine:
1. The discrepancy between Mayne's verified battlefield actions and the citations of his peers who were awarded the Victoria Cross.
2. Evidence of internal correspondence within the Military Secretary's office that may have suppressed or delayed Mayne's recommendations.
3. The validity of the 1945 "finality" decision, given the potential for missing primary source evidence that has since surfaced or been re-cataloged.
I am prepared to submit a detailed "Table of Discrepancies" to assist your team in this audit. This table cross-references verified operational AARs with successful VC citations from the same theater of operations. My interest here is purely institutional: ensuring that the historical record is accurate, verifiable, and consistent with the standards of valor established by the Crown.
I request a formal response outlining the procedure for submitting this evidence for an independent administrative review. I believe that correcting this now, based on clear archival data, is in the best interest of the Cabinet Office and the historical integrity of the Honours system. Failing to address a demonstrable archival inconsistency only serves to weaken the perceived objectivity of the Honours process.
I anticipate a response detailing the next steps for this audit and the relevant departmental contact for my forthcoming submission of evidence. I look forward to your professional cooperation in rectifying this matter of historical truth.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
TRANSCRIPT 2: SAS Regimental Association Board Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: secretary@sasregimentalassociation.co.uk, chairman@sasregimentalassociation.co.uk, archives@sasregimentalassociation.co.uk, editor@mars-and-minerva.co.uk, info@sasthe-society.co.uk
Subject: Inquiry: Archival Discrepancies and Regimental Integrity regarding Lt. Col. R.B. Mayne
To the Secretary and the Board of the SAS Regimental Association,
I am reaching out to you as a professional peer and a serious student of Unconventional Warfare history. My work involves the rigorous analysis of operational documentation and the alignment of institutional history with the modern requirements of Special Operations readiness. In the course of my research, I have been analyzing the operational After-Action Reports (AARs) and award citations for the 1st SAS Brigade during the 1944–1945 period, with a specific, forensic focus on the service record of Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne.
It is evident to any serious student of the Regiment that Mayne's contributions are not merely significant; they are foundational to the very identity of the Special Air Service. However, the continued archival silence regarding his Victoria Cross (VC) eligibility presents an increasing professional liability to the institutional memory of the SAS. When the documented record of his valor is compared against the established citations of his contemporaries in the SAS Brigade, the continued omission of the Victoria Cross appears to be an administrative anomaly that has been allowed to persist through historical inertia rather than substantive evaluation.
The Regiment prides itself on being a force of "Who Dares Wins," yet there is an inherent contradiction when the institution allows an 80-year-old administrative oversight—potentially born of the political and personality-driven tensions of the 1940s—to remain unchallenged. This silence is not merely a historical footnote; it is a signal to the modern community that the institution may be prioritizing outdated administrative finality over the accurate recognition of its own history.
I am not writing to petition for a sentimental award, but to request an internal review of the Association's stance on the administrative record. If the Regiment holds that Mayne's operational record is definitive, then there is a clear imperative to ensure that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) possesses the full, corrected historical context. I am currently compiling a comprehensive "Administrative Audit" that identifies precisely where the 1945 record diverges from the established criteria for the Victoria Cross. This audit cross-references verified battlefield actions with the citations of other VC recipients from the same theater and time period.
The discrepancies I have identified are not subjective; they are matters of record. I am specifically interested in whether the Association has access to restricted primary correspondence that might explain why Mayne's multiple Distinguished Service Orders were not upgraded during the post-war review cycles. If there was a deliberate effort to suppress or downplay his candidacy due to his unorthodox methods—a hallmark of his command—then the Regiment has a moral duty to bring that systemic bias into the light and rectify it.
My goal in reaching out is to ensure that the Regimental Association is positioned correctly before any future formal scrutiny of these records occurs. We are currently seeing a global move toward historical transparency and the correction of long-standing administrative injustices. It is my professional opinion that the SAS Regimental Association should be the entity that drives the correction of its own history, rather than reacting to external pressure from historians or legislative bodies that may lack the internal nuance to understand the operational context of the SAS.
I would welcome the opportunity to share my data and the "Table of Discrepancies" I have compiled with the Association's archival team. I believe that by proactively addressing this, the Association can turn a potential source of institutional criticism into a profound demonstration of the Regiment's commitment to truth and the honor of its founding officers.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we might ensure the Mayne record is handled with the professional rigor and integrity it deserves. I am available to provide further detail on the specific file references and operational gaps that necessitate this re-evaluation. Thank you for your time and your continued dedication to the history and future of the SAS.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
TRANSCRIPT 3: Northern Ireland Assembly & Constituency Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: info@niassembly.gov.uk, constituencyoffice@niassembly.gov.uk, partyoffice@niassembly.gov.uk, assemblyinfo@niassembly.gov.uk, privateoffice@niassembly.gov.uk, kelliearmstrong@mla.niassembly.gov.uk
Subject: Historical Equity and the Case of Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne
To the Office of the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Strangford and the Northern Ireland Assembly Secretariat,
I am writing to you regarding a matter of significant historical and patriotic importance to the Strangford constituency and the wider Northern Ireland community: the formal recognition of Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne. As an advocate for the historical integrity of our military record, I have been conducting a comprehensive, evidence-based audit of the 1944–1945 Honours and Awards process.
The evidence compiled during this audit suggests that Lt. Col. Mayne, one of the most decorated soldiers in British history and a son of Newtownards, was excluded from receiving the Victoria Cross due to administrative discrepancies that have never been formally addressed or rectified. I am asking for your office to take a leadership position on this matter. This is not a request for a generic letter of support; it is a request for a formal inquiry into why the Ministry of Defence continues to uphold 1940s-era administrative decisions that are demonstrably inconsistent with the standards applied to other soldiers of that era.
The evidence suggests that Mayne's tactical leadership and personal valor were foundational to the success of the Special Air Service in the European Theater. The absence of the Victoria Cross in his record is increasingly viewed by the global Special Operations community as a failure of institutional consistency. My audit has produced a "Table of Discrepancies" that demonstrates Lt. Col. Mayne's actions were of equal, if not greater, merit than those for which others received the Victoria Cross during the same period.
As the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Strangford, you possess the authority to pose a formal question to the Ministry of Defence on this matter. I am asking you to challenge the MoD to explain why they believe the record should remain as is, despite evidence of systemic inconsistency. This is a matter of record for the upcoming historical commemoration cycle, and it is imperative that the constituency of Strangford, which holds a deep and storied connection to Mayne's legacy, is seen to be leading the charge for historical truth and the correction of this long-standing oversight.
If you support this inquiry, you will be the champion of an 80-year historical injustice and a cornerstone of regional pride. If this matter is left unaddressed, the silence serves to endorse the continued suppression of the record of one of the greatest heroes of the British Army.
I am prepared to provide your office with the full research brief and the Table of Discrepancies so that your team is fully equipped for any parliamentary or ministerial questioning. I would be honored to assist you in making this a landmark victory for historical truth. I look forward to your response on whether you are prepared to pursue this formal inquiry on behalf of the constituency and the people of Northern Ireland.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
TRANSCRIPT 4: National Archives Research Enquiry Department Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: enquiry@nationalarchives.gov.uk, media@nationalarchives.gov.uk, records@nationalarchives.gov.uk, onlineenquiries@nationalarchives.gov.uk, recordsmanagement@nationalarchives.gov.uk
Subject: Formal Research Inquiry: WO 373 / SAS Brigade 1944-1945 Discrepancy Audit
To the Research Enquiry Department,
I am submitting this formal research inquiry regarding the "WO 373: Recommendations for Honours and Awards for Gallantry" records, specifically focusing on the SAS Brigade archives for the period of 1944–1945. I am currently conducting a high-level, forensic audit of the citation criteria used during this period to assess historical consistency and administrative accuracy within the British honours system.
The scope of my research requires access to, and clarification regarding, the administrative pathways for SAS award recommendations that were "withdrawn," "denied," or "pending" at the conclusion of the war. I am particularly focused on the records of Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne. It is my assertion, based on preliminary comparative analysis of the operational record, that there exists a significant archival gap between the documented tactical actions of this unit—specifically regarding Lt. Col. Mayne's leadership in the field—and the official commendations submitted to the Honours Committee at that time.
My audit indicates that the official record may be missing primary source documentation that would provide the necessary context for why Mayne's documented gallantry was not recognized with the Victoria Cross, despite his record exceeding the threshold established for other recipients in the same theater. I am requesting guidance on accessing supplementary files that may have been compartmentalized, misfiled, or excluded from the general WO 373 listing. Specifically, I seek access to internal correspondence from the Military Secretary's office that might detail the internal deliberations or "reasoning" behind specific award denials for SAS personnel in 1945.
If these documents have been classified or restricted under "historical sensitivity" protocols, please advise on the specific mechanism for requesting a formal declassification review. Given the 80-year timeframe and the profound public interest in the accuracy of the record regarding the SAS's foundational figures, it is essential that these documents be made available for objective historical scrutiny. The current lack of visibility into these deliberations suggests an administrative "black box" that warrants an independent archival review.
My objective is to compile a transparent "Table of Discrepancies" that will be presented to the Cabinet Office for a broader administrative audit. To complete this, I require access to additional primary source material—such as Field After-Action Reports (AARs), brigade commander notes, and intelligence officer logs—that provide the necessary "new evidence" to initiate an administrative correction of the historical record.
I am particularly interested in any evidence of correspondence that may indicate bias, administrative suppression, or the loss of primary witness statements that should have formed the basis of Mayne's original citation. If such files exist within the National Archives' holdings, I request the specific file reference numbers and the procedure for securing a comprehensive review of these items.
I appreciate your assistance in providing the necessary archival guidance to ensure this research is as comprehensive and accurate as possible. I am committed to following all protocols required to facilitate this inquiry and look forward to your professional response regarding how I may further inspect these materials to resolve these long-standing historical inconsistencies.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
TRANSCRIPT 5: SASR Association / Australian Associations Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: <President@asasawa.com.au>, <Secretary@asasawa.com.au>, <asasa.nsw.sec@gmail.com>, <nsw@sasassociation.org.au>, <treasurer@asasawa.org>
Subject: OFFICIAL INQUIRY: Forensic Administrative Audit of Valor Recognition and Historical Record Integrity
To the Board and Membership of the SASR Association,
I am writing to you as a professional advocate who has dedicated a significant portion of my career to the intricate work of navigating military record-keeping, challenging administrative policy, and honoring those who serve in the shadows.
I am currently conducting a forensic administrative audit regarding the long-standing, documented failure to award a posthumous Victoria Cross to Lieutenant Colonel Blair “Paddy” Mayne. My research has moved beyond historical sentiment to the mechanical failure of the Ministry of Defence’s records. Specifically, the evidence indicates that Mayne’s original VC recommendation was downgraded due to a demonstrable clerical error—the misinterpretation of the word "signal" as "single"—an error that has been institutionalized by the MoD to avoid a retrospective review.
The Objective of This Audit
This is not a request for a commemorative petition; it is a request for a rigorous forensic review of archival integrity. My "Table of Discrepancies" demonstrates that the MoD is relying on a policy of "long-standing precedence" to mask an administrative oversight that was acknowledged by Mayne’s own chain of command, including Field Marshal Montgomery. The MoD’s current stance—that this change was the result of a "rigorous review" rather than a clerical error—is contradicted by the primary source documentation in the National Archives (WO 373).
The Request for Collaboration
I am requesting that the SASR Association consider participating in this audit as a "Strategic Partner in Record Integrity." My goal is to compel the MoD to justify these specific archival discrepancies on the record. I am seeking:
1. Peer-Level Alignment: As an Association that embodies the "Who Dares Wins" ethos and shares a deep historical link with the SAS, I am looking to align our efforts to turn this into an international integrity issue that the MoD can no longer manage through localized stonewalling.
2. Evidence-Based Methodology: I have developed a framework for challenging these records that forces administrative bodies to address the specific documentation gaps rather than dismissing them as "closed cases." I am prepared to provide this methodology to your designated historical/archival lead.
3. Cross-Border Pressure: By coordinating our efforts, we move this from a domestic UK grievance to a Five Eyes standard of historical transparency.
The Path Forward
The MoD is currently attempting to categorize this effort—they recognize the signature, they understand the methodology, and they are aware that this inquiry is designed to trigger a formal accountability process. They are currently operating on the assumption that this campaign is limited to emotional public pressure. They are not prepared for a multi-national forensic audit.
I am not asking for your endorsement of a sentiment; I am asking for your cooperation in holding the administrative apparatus accountable to its own historical records.
I look forward to your thoughts on how we can align our research. I am prepared to provide a full dossier of my findings to your association at your earliest convenience.
Who Dares Wins.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
17
The Issue
A GLOBAL CALL FOR HISTORICAL TRUTH: SECURING THE VICTORIA CROSS FOR LT. COL. ROBERT "PADDY" MAYNE
SECTION 1: THE PETITION MANIFESTO & GLOBAL CALL TO ARMS
To Our Fellow Veterans in the United States, Modern Special Operations Forces, Military Historians, and Citizens Across the Globe:
This is a global petition for historical equity, military honor, and archival accuracy.
As a veteran of the United States Armed Forces and an independent student of Unconventional Warfare history, I am addressing my fellow American veterans first and foremost. For over a century, the United States and the United Kingdom have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of global liberty. In the dark days of World War II, our shared victory was forged through relentless courage, shared sacrifice, and the revolutionary operational doctrine created by the British Special Air Service (SAS).
The tactical victories of the Western Allies in Europe and North Africa were heavily reliant on the audacity of the 1st SAS Brigade. Their actions saved thousands of Allied lives—including American service members—and established the very template for modern Special Operations Forces across the NATO alliance.
It is a matter of profound national and military honor for us in the United States—and across the free world—to ensure that those from the United Kingdom who gave everything for our collective freedom are accurately recognized in the historical record.
This petition is not born of regional sentiment, political maneuvering, or internal UK service politics. It is an independent, objective mandate brought by an American military researcher with no personal or political agenda. When a forensically documented combat record reveals that one of the greatest battle commanders in modern warfare was excluded from his nation's highest decoration for valor due to 1940s-era administrative friction, personality conflicts, or clerical oversights, the global military community has a moral obligation to speak up.
SECTION 2: THE HISTORICAL DISCREPANCY & THE CASE FOR VALOR
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair "Paddy" Mayne (1st SAS Brigade)
Lt. Col. Paddy Mayne was not merely a soldier; he was a founding architect of Special Operations warfare. From the deserts of North Africa to the final push into the heart of Nazi Germany, Mayne personally destroyed more enemy aircraft on the ground than any fighter ace in the Royal Air Force, executed unprecedented deep-penetration raids, and demonstrated battlefield command under fire that remains legendary.
Despite accumulating four Distinguished Service Orders (DSOs), his formal recommendation for the Victoria Cross—the highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy within the British Honours System—was downgraded to a DSO following his actions in Oldenburg, Germany, in April 1945.
The Objective Forensic Audit: The "Table of Discrepancies"
Our ongoing research audit cross-references verified battlefield After-Action Reports (AARs) from the European Theater against successful Victoria Cross citations awarded to contemporaries during the same operational period (1944–1945). The data demonstrates:
1. Operational Parity: Mayne’s documented actions at Oldenburg—rescuing trapped troops under concentrated, heavy enemy fire, clearing enemy positions single-handedly, and leading from the front under extreme danger—equaled or exceeded the actions for which contemporaries received the Victoria Cross.
2. Administrative Finality vs. Historical Truth: The 1945 administrative finality decisions relied on incomplete battle logs and were heavily influenced by post-war bureaucratic inertia and command-level personality friction.
3. Institutional Liability: Allowing an 80-year-old administrative error to persist damages the integrity of military history and sets a precedent that bureaucracy can overrule proven battlefield valor.
SECTION 3: RECENT SUCCESS & THE MOMENTUM OF HISTORICAL RECTIFICATION
This campaign mirrors the proven advocacy blueprint successfully executed stateside for Sergeant First Class (Retired) Jorge Otero Barreto ("The Puerto Rican Rambo").
SFC Otero Barreto—a close personal friend and mentor who completed five combat tours in Vietnam, sustained five combat wounds, and earned 38 military decorations—faced similar decades-long administrative hurdles regarding the Medal of Honor. Through persistent, evidence-backed advocacy, public petitions, and legislative engagement, his case reached the highest levels of national leadership. Recent formal requests from U.S. leaders—including Senator Gary Peters of Michigan and retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Jack Bergman—asking Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to reconsider Otero Barreto for the Medal of Honor prove that grassroots momentum combined with unyielding historical proof can break through bureaucratic inertia.
We are taking that exact winning framework and expanding it globally to ensure Lt. Col. Paddy Mayne receives the Victoria Cross he so clearly earned.
SECTION 4: CHRONOLOGY & ITEMIZED LIST OF OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS
Below is an itemized breakdown of the formal communications and administrative requests that have already been submitted to sovereign governing bodies, military archives, and regimental associations regarding the case of Lt. Col. Mayne.
Item 1: Formal Submission to the Cabinet Office & DSIA (Submitted June 3, 2026)
Recipients: Cabinet Office Honours Secretariat, Public Correspondence, FOI Secretariat, and Defence Security and Industry Association (DSIA).
Purpose: Formal request for an administrative audit of WO 373 files to investigate post-war clerical oversights and systemic discrepancies.
Item 2: Inquiry to the SAS Regimental Association & Historical Bodies (Submitted June 3, 2026)
Recipients: SAS Regimental Association Board, Archives, Mars & MinervaEditor, and the SAS Historical Society.
Purpose: Highlighting the institutional liability of archival silence and calling on the Regiment to proactively champion its founding commander's true record.
Item 3: Formal Advocacy Statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly (Submitted June 3, 2026)
Recipients: Northern Ireland Assembly Secretariat and Kellie Armstrong, MLA (Strangford).
Purpose: Requesting regional leadership to challenge the Ministry of Defence on 1940s-era administrative inconsistencies. (Resulted in guidance from Kellie Armstrong, MLA, advising escalation to Westminster MP Jim Shannon for formal MoD questioning).
SECTION 5: FULL WORD-FOR-WORD COPIES OF OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
(These full transcripts are included directly in the petition updates to provide total transparency to all signers and historians.)
TRANSCRIPT 1: Cabinet Office & DSIA Formal Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: honours@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, freedom-of-information-request@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, secretariat@cabinetoffice.gov.uk, correspondence@dsia.gov.uk
Subject: Formal Submission: Administrative Audit Regarding the 1945 Honours and Awards process (Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne)
I am writing to submit a formal request for an administrative audit of the records pertaining to the honors and awards issued to Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne during the 1944–1945 period. This request is not a petition for sentiment; it is a formal request for a forensic administrative review. My objective is to identify and resolve systemic discrepancies between the documented operational record of Lt. Col. Mayne and the criteria applied for the Victoria Cross during the post-war review cycle.
It has long been noted by historians and military analysts that the exclusion of Lt. Col. Mayne from the Victoria Cross constitutes a significant outlier in the context of the SAS Brigade's documented operational achievements. My preliminary review of the archival framework suggests that this exclusion may not have been the result of a lack of merit, but rather an administrative failure—potentially involving the suppression, misplacement, or clerical oversight of primary After-Action Reports (AARs) and witness testimonies that should have been included in the 1945 consideration.
The historical record indicates that Lt. Col. Mayne's tactical leadership and personal valor were foundational to the success of the SAS in the European Theater. The absence of the Victoria Cross in his record is viewed by the global Special Operations community as a failure of institutional consistency.
The integrity of the British Honours system rests on the principle of consistency and objective merit. When the record shows that personnel performing actions of comparable or lesser scope—often under the same operational conditions—received the Victoria Cross, while an individual of Mayne's documented record did not, it creates a lingering historical inconsistency. The Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence are the ultimate stewards of this record, and therefore bear the responsibility for clarifying these archival gaps.
I am requesting that the Secretariat conduct an audit of the "WO 373" (Recommendations for Honours and Awards) files pertaining to the SAS Brigade in 1945. Specifically, I seek to understand if the "new evidence" threshold can be met by re-evaluating documents that were either omitted from the original citation process or subject to administrative bias at the time of processing.
This audit should specifically examine:
1. The discrepancy between Mayne's verified battlefield actions and the citations of his peers who were awarded the Victoria Cross.
2. Evidence of internal correspondence within the Military Secretary's office that may have suppressed or delayed Mayne's recommendations.
3. The validity of the 1945 "finality" decision, given the potential for missing primary source evidence that has since surfaced or been re-cataloged.
I am prepared to submit a detailed "Table of Discrepancies" to assist your team in this audit. This table cross-references verified operational AARs with successful VC citations from the same theater of operations. My interest here is purely institutional: ensuring that the historical record is accurate, verifiable, and consistent with the standards of valor established by the Crown.
I request a formal response outlining the procedure for submitting this evidence for an independent administrative review. I believe that correcting this now, based on clear archival data, is in the best interest of the Cabinet Office and the historical integrity of the Honours system. Failing to address a demonstrable archival inconsistency only serves to weaken the perceived objectivity of the Honours process.
I anticipate a response detailing the next steps for this audit and the relevant departmental contact for my forthcoming submission of evidence. I look forward to your professional cooperation in rectifying this matter of historical truth.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
TRANSCRIPT 2: SAS Regimental Association Board Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: secretary@sasregimentalassociation.co.uk, chairman@sasregimentalassociation.co.uk, archives@sasregimentalassociation.co.uk, editor@mars-and-minerva.co.uk, info@sasthe-society.co.uk
Subject: Inquiry: Archival Discrepancies and Regimental Integrity regarding Lt. Col. R.B. Mayne
To the Secretary and the Board of the SAS Regimental Association,
I am reaching out to you as a professional peer and a serious student of Unconventional Warfare history. My work involves the rigorous analysis of operational documentation and the alignment of institutional history with the modern requirements of Special Operations readiness. In the course of my research, I have been analyzing the operational After-Action Reports (AARs) and award citations for the 1st SAS Brigade during the 1944–1945 period, with a specific, forensic focus on the service record of Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne.
It is evident to any serious student of the Regiment that Mayne's contributions are not merely significant; they are foundational to the very identity of the Special Air Service. However, the continued archival silence regarding his Victoria Cross (VC) eligibility presents an increasing professional liability to the institutional memory of the SAS. When the documented record of his valor is compared against the established citations of his contemporaries in the SAS Brigade, the continued omission of the Victoria Cross appears to be an administrative anomaly that has been allowed to persist through historical inertia rather than substantive evaluation.
The Regiment prides itself on being a force of "Who Dares Wins," yet there is an inherent contradiction when the institution allows an 80-year-old administrative oversight—potentially born of the political and personality-driven tensions of the 1940s—to remain unchallenged. This silence is not merely a historical footnote; it is a signal to the modern community that the institution may be prioritizing outdated administrative finality over the accurate recognition of its own history.
I am not writing to petition for a sentimental award, but to request an internal review of the Association's stance on the administrative record. If the Regiment holds that Mayne's operational record is definitive, then there is a clear imperative to ensure that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) possesses the full, corrected historical context. I am currently compiling a comprehensive "Administrative Audit" that identifies precisely where the 1945 record diverges from the established criteria for the Victoria Cross. This audit cross-references verified battlefield actions with the citations of other VC recipients from the same theater and time period.
The discrepancies I have identified are not subjective; they are matters of record. I am specifically interested in whether the Association has access to restricted primary correspondence that might explain why Mayne's multiple Distinguished Service Orders were not upgraded during the post-war review cycles. If there was a deliberate effort to suppress or downplay his candidacy due to his unorthodox methods—a hallmark of his command—then the Regiment has a moral duty to bring that systemic bias into the light and rectify it.
My goal in reaching out is to ensure that the Regimental Association is positioned correctly before any future formal scrutiny of these records occurs. We are currently seeing a global move toward historical transparency and the correction of long-standing administrative injustices. It is my professional opinion that the SAS Regimental Association should be the entity that drives the correction of its own history, rather than reacting to external pressure from historians or legislative bodies that may lack the internal nuance to understand the operational context of the SAS.
I would welcome the opportunity to share my data and the "Table of Discrepancies" I have compiled with the Association's archival team. I believe that by proactively addressing this, the Association can turn a potential source of institutional criticism into a profound demonstration of the Regiment's commitment to truth and the honor of its founding officers.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we might ensure the Mayne record is handled with the professional rigor and integrity it deserves. I am available to provide further detail on the specific file references and operational gaps that necessitate this re-evaluation. Thank you for your time and your continued dedication to the history and future of the SAS.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
TRANSCRIPT 3: Northern Ireland Assembly & Constituency Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: info@niassembly.gov.uk, constituencyoffice@niassembly.gov.uk, partyoffice@niassembly.gov.uk, assemblyinfo@niassembly.gov.uk, privateoffice@niassembly.gov.uk, kelliearmstrong@mla.niassembly.gov.uk
Subject: Historical Equity and the Case of Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne
To the Office of the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Strangford and the Northern Ireland Assembly Secretariat,
I am writing to you regarding a matter of significant historical and patriotic importance to the Strangford constituency and the wider Northern Ireland community: the formal recognition of Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne. As an advocate for the historical integrity of our military record, I have been conducting a comprehensive, evidence-based audit of the 1944–1945 Honours and Awards process.
The evidence compiled during this audit suggests that Lt. Col. Mayne, one of the most decorated soldiers in British history and a son of Newtownards, was excluded from receiving the Victoria Cross due to administrative discrepancies that have never been formally addressed or rectified. I am asking for your office to take a leadership position on this matter. This is not a request for a generic letter of support; it is a request for a formal inquiry into why the Ministry of Defence continues to uphold 1940s-era administrative decisions that are demonstrably inconsistent with the standards applied to other soldiers of that era.
The evidence suggests that Mayne's tactical leadership and personal valor were foundational to the success of the Special Air Service in the European Theater. The absence of the Victoria Cross in his record is increasingly viewed by the global Special Operations community as a failure of institutional consistency. My audit has produced a "Table of Discrepancies" that demonstrates Lt. Col. Mayne's actions were of equal, if not greater, merit than those for which others received the Victoria Cross during the same period.
As the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Strangford, you possess the authority to pose a formal question to the Ministry of Defence on this matter. I am asking you to challenge the MoD to explain why they believe the record should remain as is, despite evidence of systemic inconsistency. This is a matter of record for the upcoming historical commemoration cycle, and it is imperative that the constituency of Strangford, which holds a deep and storied connection to Mayne's legacy, is seen to be leading the charge for historical truth and the correction of this long-standing oversight.
If you support this inquiry, you will be the champion of an 80-year historical injustice and a cornerstone of regional pride. If this matter is left unaddressed, the silence serves to endorse the continued suppression of the record of one of the greatest heroes of the British Army.
I am prepared to provide your office with the full research brief and the Table of Discrepancies so that your team is fully equipped for any parliamentary or ministerial questioning. I would be honored to assist you in making this a landmark victory for historical truth. I look forward to your response on whether you are prepared to pursue this formal inquiry on behalf of the constituency and the people of Northern Ireland.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
TRANSCRIPT 4: National Archives Research Enquiry Department Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: enquiry@nationalarchives.gov.uk, media@nationalarchives.gov.uk, records@nationalarchives.gov.uk, onlineenquiries@nationalarchives.gov.uk, recordsmanagement@nationalarchives.gov.uk
Subject: Formal Research Inquiry: WO 373 / SAS Brigade 1944-1945 Discrepancy Audit
To the Research Enquiry Department,
I am submitting this formal research inquiry regarding the "WO 373: Recommendations for Honours and Awards for Gallantry" records, specifically focusing on the SAS Brigade archives for the period of 1944–1945. I am currently conducting a high-level, forensic audit of the citation criteria used during this period to assess historical consistency and administrative accuracy within the British honours system.
The scope of my research requires access to, and clarification regarding, the administrative pathways for SAS award recommendations that were "withdrawn," "denied," or "pending" at the conclusion of the war. I am particularly focused on the records of Lt. Col. Robert "Paddy" Mayne. It is my assertion, based on preliminary comparative analysis of the operational record, that there exists a significant archival gap between the documented tactical actions of this unit—specifically regarding Lt. Col. Mayne's leadership in the field—and the official commendations submitted to the Honours Committee at that time.
My audit indicates that the official record may be missing primary source documentation that would provide the necessary context for why Mayne's documented gallantry was not recognized with the Victoria Cross, despite his record exceeding the threshold established for other recipients in the same theater. I am requesting guidance on accessing supplementary files that may have been compartmentalized, misfiled, or excluded from the general WO 373 listing. Specifically, I seek access to internal correspondence from the Military Secretary's office that might detail the internal deliberations or "reasoning" behind specific award denials for SAS personnel in 1945.
If these documents have been classified or restricted under "historical sensitivity" protocols, please advise on the specific mechanism for requesting a formal declassification review. Given the 80-year timeframe and the profound public interest in the accuracy of the record regarding the SAS's foundational figures, it is essential that these documents be made available for objective historical scrutiny. The current lack of visibility into these deliberations suggests an administrative "black box" that warrants an independent archival review.
My objective is to compile a transparent "Table of Discrepancies" that will be presented to the Cabinet Office for a broader administrative audit. To complete this, I require access to additional primary source material—such as Field After-Action Reports (AARs), brigade commander notes, and intelligence officer logs—that provide the necessary "new evidence" to initiate an administrative correction of the historical record.
I am particularly interested in any evidence of correspondence that may indicate bias, administrative suppression, or the loss of primary witness statements that should have formed the basis of Mayne's original citation. If such files exist within the National Archives' holdings, I request the specific file reference numbers and the procedure for securing a comprehensive review of these items.
I appreciate your assistance in providing the necessary archival guidance to ensure this research is as comprehensive and accurate as possible. I am committed to following all protocols required to facilitate this inquiry and look forward to your professional response regarding how I may further inspect these materials to resolve these long-standing historical inconsistencies.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
TRANSCRIPT 5: SASR Association / Australian Associations Submission
Date: June 3, 2026
From: Bryce Mallory bmallorybso@gmail.com
To: <President@asasawa.com.au>, <Secretary@asasawa.com.au>, <asasa.nsw.sec@gmail.com>, <nsw@sasassociation.org.au>, <treasurer@asasawa.org>
Subject: OFFICIAL INQUIRY: Forensic Administrative Audit of Valor Recognition and Historical Record Integrity
To the Board and Membership of the SASR Association,
I am writing to you as a professional advocate who has dedicated a significant portion of my career to the intricate work of navigating military record-keeping, challenging administrative policy, and honoring those who serve in the shadows.
I am currently conducting a forensic administrative audit regarding the long-standing, documented failure to award a posthumous Victoria Cross to Lieutenant Colonel Blair “Paddy” Mayne. My research has moved beyond historical sentiment to the mechanical failure of the Ministry of Defence’s records. Specifically, the evidence indicates that Mayne’s original VC recommendation was downgraded due to a demonstrable clerical error—the misinterpretation of the word "signal" as "single"—an error that has been institutionalized by the MoD to avoid a retrospective review.
The Objective of This Audit
This is not a request for a commemorative petition; it is a request for a rigorous forensic review of archival integrity. My "Table of Discrepancies" demonstrates that the MoD is relying on a policy of "long-standing precedence" to mask an administrative oversight that was acknowledged by Mayne’s own chain of command, including Field Marshal Montgomery. The MoD’s current stance—that this change was the result of a "rigorous review" rather than a clerical error—is contradicted by the primary source documentation in the National Archives (WO 373).
The Request for Collaboration
I am requesting that the SASR Association consider participating in this audit as a "Strategic Partner in Record Integrity." My goal is to compel the MoD to justify these specific archival discrepancies on the record. I am seeking:
1. Peer-Level Alignment: As an Association that embodies the "Who Dares Wins" ethos and shares a deep historical link with the SAS, I am looking to align our efforts to turn this into an international integrity issue that the MoD can no longer manage through localized stonewalling.
2. Evidence-Based Methodology: I have developed a framework for challenging these records that forces administrative bodies to address the specific documentation gaps rather than dismissing them as "closed cases." I am prepared to provide this methodology to your designated historical/archival lead.
3. Cross-Border Pressure: By coordinating our efforts, we move this from a domestic UK grievance to a Five Eyes standard of historical transparency.
The Path Forward
The MoD is currently attempting to categorize this effort—they recognize the signature, they understand the methodology, and they are aware that this inquiry is designed to trigger a formal accountability process. They are currently operating on the assumption that this campaign is limited to emotional public pressure. They are not prepared for a multi-national forensic audit.
I am not asking for your endorsement of a sentiment; I am asking for your cooperation in holding the administrative apparatus accountable to its own historical records.
I look forward to your thoughts on how we can align our research. I am prepared to provide a full dossier of my findings to your association at your earliest convenience.
Who Dares Wins.
Respectfully,
Bryce Mallory
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on October 25, 2026