Talk:Medal of Honor

message: Do you have to be a member of the US Armed forces to receive this medal? I have seen examples of awards to non-members but there is no mention in the article of how these exceptions are made.2601:647:5800:7D80:FC13:6FB4:D298:3491 (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It states right in the infobox: Eligibility - United States Armed Forces service members - wolf 02:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: Yes. You must be/have been active duty, reserve, or National Guard to recieve the Medal of Honor and it can only be awarded for heroism in combat. The Unknown Warrior was awarded the Medal of Honor on 17 October 1921, and the Victoria Cross was awarded to the Unknown Soldier in return. That is the only exception I know of; aside from such a significant symbolic gesture, the Medal of Honor is not awarded to civilians or foreigners. AC9016 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

text: You might also want to review the section in the article about revoked awards. There were a handful of MoH awarded to non-military members prior to 1900. Most of those were revoked by the 1916 board, although some were reinstated later. Intothatdarkness 13:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Every authorizing statute ever enacted required members to be in the service. The only case I'm aware of where there was wiggle room was the original 1861 Navy statute, which didn't expressly permit marines the MoH (from memory, I think it only said seamen, which was simply interpreted to include enlisted marines). The civilian awards were clearly unlawful--several civilian Navy pilots received them in the Civil War, and these were never revoked. The Army cases were a little different. Dr. Walker's medal was purely the product of the president seeking another form of recognition after her brevet request was denied, so he sort of jumped the shark and overrode the War Dept. Then, her medal was validly revoked per statute enacted in 1916. Somehow the BCMR convened in the 1970s lacked sound legal advice, and decided they had the authority to unilaterally override the original law, the revocation law, and the modern moh law enacted in 1918 (all of which required Walker to be a soldier). The BCMR is a delegation of the authority of SecArmy, so it's not even a cabinet level authority--it's a clear separation of powers conflict to take an action of this sort. So, they cannot override statutes, and must recommend a statutory waiver in cases like these--this has since been clarified to the Review Boards by OSD, so the BCMRs are now on notice that they cannot accomplish this on their own (which has since occurred with Garlin Conner). Walker's unlawful restoration triggered a relative of Buffalo Bill Cody to ask for the same, and the BCMR recommended restoration, but it was kicked back correctly on the grounds that the BCMR couldn't simply restore a medal without addressing the underlying defect (that Cody was a contract quartermaster guide, and not a soldier). So the BCMR created a fake enlistment for Cody and the other so-called scouts who had their medals rescinded, even though they were never enlisted. My read is that this may have been technically lawful, but was probably still incorrect, because none of those men were actually de facto soldiers, and Cody's relative petitioned primarily on the grounds that the statutes did not require Cody to be a soldier, which of course was clearly false. The whole point of the BCMR's creation back in the 1940s was to relieve Congress of the need to pass statutory waivers to correct military records (a prerequisite at that time), but of course this does not mean that the BCMR can simply act is if it has the same authority as Congress (which would not be a permissible delegation of Constitutional authority). So they can only make corrections in the cases of errors or injustices where there isn't a bar on this sort of correction. In Walker and Cody's cases, there was a clear bar, so those restorations were arguably unlawful, but nobody is going to touch them again for a variety of reasons. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Eligibility

message: Is this the Medal of Honor on the left? Looks like it to me but I can't find him in a list of recipients though Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It is the badge of the Grand Army of the Republic. See section 'Historic versions' - In 1896, the Army version changed the ribbon's design and colors due to misuse and imitation by nonmilitary organizations. In 1904, the Army "Gillespie" version introduced a smaller redesigned star and the ribbon was changed to the light blue pattern with white stars seen today. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:File:ROGERS, WILLIAM PENNOCK. GENERAL LCCN2016858958.jpg]]

message: According to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and the U.S. Army Center of Military History websites, there are 65 living Medal of Honor recipients as of September 2023. Of those, only 4 are listed by those sources and on Wikipedia as being still on active duty: Lieutenant Colonel William D. Swenson, Sergeant Major Thomas Payne, Sergeant Major Matthew O. Williams, and Master Sergeant Earl Plumlee. I can find sources affirming each of these four individuals are still in the active-duty U.S. Army today. I (and anyone else capable of reason) can deduce that given the extraordinary prominence and rarity of the Medal of Honor, were there another on active duty, or in a reserve component or any state's National Guard, information would be easily found on that point.I have been running search after search and found no source explicitly, word-for-word stating only these four are on active duty, but with just 65 living recipients of the award, this is not something that would just get missed. Problem is if somebody policing this website wants to get legalistic, then strictly speaking, a source would need to explicitly state only four recipients are still serving today.Does anyone have any source material for this? Ideas on where to find that? Short of directly contacting the CMOHS or the U.S. Army Center of Military History and asking for a memorandum affirming this, I do not know how else to verify that these 4 are the only MOH recipients on active duty. If anyone can assist or clear up how Wikipedia handles this, I will welcome any assistance. Thank you in advance to anyone who may chime in on this. AC9016 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't cite the Center of Military History page--they don't update it consistently, and have indicated that they wish they'd never put up the page in the first place (it has a lot of mistakes owing to the Senate committee researchers from the 1970s not knowing what they were doing, which CMH then took ownership of by republishing). Suggest asking the Society or the National Museum, who can both verify this easily enough. DoD isn't going to publish anything that gets updated (and likely wouldn't confirm the information upon query), probably for privacy reasons. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no better source than the Congressional Medal of Honor Society (CMOHS). In both the US and the UK, it is the recipients’ organisations, the CMOHS and the Victoria Cross and George Association who are interested accuracy rather than government departments. I am retired, but as an author who uses his name in Wikipedia and who tries to love their neighbour as himself, I do not write my first reaction to some of the helpful legalistic comments I have received. I now understand, but was unaware in 2015 why the Center of Military History was not updating their MofH information, but they were the first to have such information online and they have my thanks. All Center of Military History references should now be deleted. Back in 2015, when this article had four different totals for the number of MofH awards, the CMOHS total had a plus 2 error. When I contacted the CMOHS, I received a prompt reply that they were aware of the error but that it would be corrected when the redesigned website was implemented. It took a while, but it was worth the wait. While the Center of Military History gets credit for being online, the Senate 1963, 1973 and 1979 green books which consolidated the 1948 Army and 1949 Navy hardcover MofH books plus subsequent awards provided a reasonable priced softcover edition. Pity the 1973 and 1979 issues did not correct the Custer typo error, the inclusion of Billy Mitchell and some other issues. Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I recently found several mistakes on the society page, for one of the soldiers I am researching: Marvin Hillock. See https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/marvin-c-hillock. Hillock did not earn the medal at Wounded Knee nor on that date--it was actually at White Clay Creek a day later. But somehow the Army botched later circulars that confused the date and location, which apparently is why the society has the wrong information--they trusted the Army circulars. Interestingly, Hillock was later a deserter, so he was expelled dishonorably from the Army, along with two of the actual Wounded Knee recipients. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I was originally quite in awe of the Senate report's detail, but then I discovered that they mostly copied their information on the medal's development (and likely the medal listings) from the Army's 1948 volume: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.319510015715936&seq=11. Evidently it was just a cut and paste job other than filling in the citations awarded in the meantime. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your comments although I am grateful for the Senate print version and the CMH online copy. It was such obvious errors as Tom Custer's awards that disappointed me. I presume you have alerted CMOHS about Marvin Hillock. It inspired me to check Mathew Hamilton who was decorated for Wounded Knee. I will inform CMOHS that his first enlistment indicated he was Australian born but subsequent enlistments show he was Scottish born. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think I wrote the society, but I did fix a few Wikipedia entries. The error for Hillock meant that he was included incorrectly in Senator Warren's Remove the Stain Act (claiming 20 MoHs were awarded for conduct at Wounded Knee instead of 19, due to the Hillock error). That bill would have revoked Hillock's MoH arbitrarily if it had passed. The proponents were aware of the error but decided not to update the bill--it was then reintroduced several more times, most recently in an attempt to add it to the NDAA in 2023 (it didn't get a vote). In re: Hamilton, I pulled his file because he is the guy who chased several pack mules carrying ammunition, and also chased several stampeded horses (he did the same at WK and at White Clay Creek, so they rolled up both actions into the same recommendation). Interestingly, his MoH recommendation was kicked back by the commanding general for lack of specific information distinguishing his conduct, which caused his company commander to resubmit with a more robust recommendation. There are some interesting questions there--was this sort of conduct actually distinguishable within the meaning of the Army's regulation (it required only distinguished conduct as of 1889, and they added "bravery" via general order in 1892). There is a partial explanation of distinguished conduct from the 1917 MoH review board (who determined that enlistments, carrying dispatches, picking up shells and fuses, bringing off the colors, putting out a fire in a warehouse, and guarding Lincoln's casket were not distinguished, but they largely dodged the question by just focusing exclusively on non-combat actions (they declined to review any of the other cases--they simply had a major summarize them but passed them all over, never even looking at the files). Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active-duty Medal of Honor recipients