Talk:Medal of Honor

Eligibility
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)
 * It states right in the infobox: Eligibility - United States Armed Forces service members -  wolf  02:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

File:ROGERS, WILLIAM PENNOCK. GENERAL LCCN2016858958.jpg
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)
 * 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)

Clarification of symbolic awards
Just added an explanation of the symbolic awards for unknowns, and provided a citation to both a scholar book and quotation from the FY2005 defense bill explaining that they are symbolic and represent all unknowns, not the member physically interred. My follow-on explanation that this means they are not discrete awards comparable to regular MoH approvals keeps getting removed for lack of support, but the citation is indeed adequate in my view. The source cited conveys that unknown awards are not discrete awards since they are not intended for one individual, and thus are entirely symbolic, as both DoD and the legislation clearly explained. As a result, it's not a huge leap to say they are not comparable to regular MoH adjudications, because they obviously rely entirely on public law waivers (all are statutory, meaning, they are exempted from the criteria applied to virtually all regular recipients--indeed heroism isn't even a requirement at all), and aren't even for one individual. In that particular case (Blassie), since there appear to be no other unknowns from Vietnam, or at least none interred at Arlington, that means that the award itself is apparently presently recognizing no servicemembers at all. So counting it on a tally of discrete awards seems a bit paradoxical, yes? For example, when tabulating how many MoH awards have been approved in history, including the unknowns makes little sense, because it's not intended for a single person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The cited piece is adequate as I explained in my last edit summary. The sentence you keep adding after it is unnecessary (and reads more like opinion) based on the cited source. You don't need to duplicate information, especially with wording that reads more like an unsupported opinion. Let the quoted and cited section speak for itself. Intothatdarkness 18:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree--it's clearly relevant to tabulating discrete numbers of awards, such as in the table directly below that paragraph, which bizarrely includes the unknowns as if they are individual awards. If in fact they represent hundreds of people (or none), then perhaps they shouldn't be included in that count. Suggest listing them as symbolic awards that aren't the same as individual awards, which shouldn't really be controversial. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It already says in that section they're symbolic awards. And when you say "it's not a huge leap" you're essentially conducting original research. Is there an RS that specifically says these awards are somehow less than an individual award and thus excluded from normal tallies? If so, it can (and should) be used. If not, you're injecting opinion. Intothatdarkness 20:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The references cited say the awards potentially represent hundreds of people and not individuals--it expressly says this, so I'm not sure why we are arguing about this. It's codified at 10 USC 1134. I'll restate, by saying it's not a "huge leap" to say these are not discrete awards--that's more or less precisely what the law says, absent the term "discrete." If the medal isn't awarded to a real person, it's quite obviously not a discrete award. Thus, I don't think it should be counted under a tally as we've done here, because it throws it off. Another problem with that table is that it quantifies the unknowns under "conflict," but the unknowns are clearly within the conflicts already listed there. I think it needs its own category outside of that table, because someone seeking number of MoHs awarded likely isn't going to be after symbolic awards that aren't even to a person. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Except both organizations that track MoH awards DO count those. It's an award, no matter how you want to define it. Again, if you can find an RS explicitly saying those awards are NOT counted toward any kind of total that would be fine. So far I haven't seen anything that says that. It's a medal that was awarded, so it should be counted as such until you can produce an RS saying differently. Intothatdarkness 15:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll consider raising it to both organizations, as I have a relationship with them. I'm well aware they don't know any better, and probably would have preferred these awards never took place--the US was largely forced into these actions because of our alliances in WWI; as a matter of reciprocity we couldn't really refuse to award medals to our own unknowns or foreign unknowns when other nations were doing the same.
 * I took another look at the authorization legislation for the Vietnam Unknown, and the authorizing text clearly permits the award solely to the soldier physically interred:
 * "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President may award, and present in the name of Congress, the Medal of Honor to the unknown American who lost his life while serving in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam Era as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States and who has been selected to lie buried in the Memorial Amphitheater of the National Cemetery at Arlington, Virginia, as authorized by Section 9 of the National Cemeteries Act of 1973, (Public Law 93-43)."
 * Congress subsequently passed the law in 2004 (10 USC 1134) to clarify the award was symbolic, but that doesn't resolve the issue, because even if all of the unknown MoH awards are symbolic, there has to be other unknown to be symbolically represented, and my understanding is that Blassie was the only unknown ever designated for that war. Technically, the statute says it's symbolic of "the members of the armed forces who died in such war or other armed conflict," so I guess it could be symbolic of all members who have ever died in any US conflict and were not identified, but that interpretation would have the unknown MoHs duplicating the same recognition, which has been prohibited in policy since the Coolidge administration. Further, in the clarifying law, the conference managers erred by referencing only a singular MoH rather than the several approved by Congress to unknowns, as well as failing to clarify the status of foreign unknown awards. In sum, this whole issue is a real mess. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also looking at De Leon's statement, which doesn't square with the law. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/08/22/medal-honoring-unknowns-wont-go-to-family-of-identified-pilot/a62d050e-c5c7-4e6a-abe7-52d803ec20fc/
 * He said in his statement that the medal would be displayed near the tomb "as a tribute to all who, like Michael, unselfishly gave their lives in service to our nation during the Vietnam conflict," but that would make the award symbolic of the Vietnam dead, not the Vietnam unknowns. The Pentagon spokesman echoed the same. But if no other unknowns were designated, then that's literally not true, because both laws expressly authorized the medal only to unknowns, symbolically or otherwise. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do what you will, I guess. You seem intent on depreciating the status of the MoH awards to unknown soldiers for reasons I can't fathom. To me it's not that much different than MoHs awarded before the 20th century...the MoH was the only award that existed at that time and was often given out for very generic reasons. You're still conducting both SYNTH and OR to arrive at your conclusion that those awards should be somehow depreciated or removed from the count, and it will remain so until you can produce some RS explicitly stating those MoHs are somehow different in the sense you claim. Intothatdarkness 18:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that the awards to unknowns don't actually recognize a single individual (or anyone at all, in the case of the Vietnam unknown) isn't depreciating the status, it's just an observation that they're not awards to individuals any longer (if they ever were awards to individuals is unclear--the original authorizing legislation seems to say so, since they expressly awarded the medals to the servicemember in question occupying that physical location). I also disagree with your analogy to the changing standards of the public law medal criteria, which were for the most part modified prospectively, not in an ex post facto manner (with the notable exception of the 1916 MoH review board statute). For example, when Congress elevated the Army's MoH in the executive order and later statute of 1918, they materially amended (and effectively repealed) all prior legislation for that medal, but they did not enforce the criteria retroactively, so they didn't go back and say that you had to be gallant above and beyond the call of duty throughout history before that requirement existed (which would be absurd, since that terminology dates to the turn of the century). They simply required it after that point. But the unknown MoH statutory authorization and subsequent amendment is different, because they decided to go back and retroactively effectively amend the original statute after the Vietnam unknown was identified--the FY2005 NDAA clarification didn't apply prospectively to future unknowns, but rather operated in ex post facto manner by clarifying the original laws enacted after WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. I suppose it's open to interpretation whether that depreciated the status (arguably it did with the Vietnam unknown), but that's not what I'm asserting. I'm just pointing out that it makes little sense to count these awards as if they're the same as medals awarded to individual servicemembers for gallantry. I think they deserve a separate classification, because they've now been reclassified as symbolic, and are no longer tethered to individuals. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just did a deep dive into Blassie and the associated statutes and policy. It's interesting and appalling at the same time. His OMPF was digitized by NARA: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/100334847, which provides some insight into how this happened. I also wrote to the Clinton Library, and they replied saying it was entirely a DoD decision without the president's involvement (I'm sure they didn't want to come near it). Apparently the decision to deny was based on a protracted USAF legal review directed by Secretary Cohen. I'm going to request it, as the clarifying law passed in 2004 should supersede the attorney-client protections (the statute likely precludes the possibility of litigation).
 * Congress had originally authorized the interment of a Vietnam Unknown in 1973, but most all of the unidentified remains from the conflict didn’t meet requirements for interment in the Tomb. So no Vietnam Unknown was immediately selected, but congressional inquiries put pressure on DoD, who studied the matter, which was exacerbated by the fact that “employment of modern techniques in the forensic sciences has resulted in an almost totally successful identification of remains program.” SecArmy John Marsh ultimately decided to pick one in 1982 to put the issue to rest.
 * Somehow DoD picked remains that had already been tentatively identified as Blassie’s but then were reassigned as unknown after botched anthropological analysis. So there was substantial evidence, both circumstantial and actual, that the remains were Blassie’s. This probably happened because there were so few remains that met the criteria for interment. Then, because they were using the same protocol used to select the prior Unknowns, DoD destroyed the records of which one they had picked(!!!), which of course made it more difficult to figure out in hindsight.
 * Congress authorized President Reagan to award the MoH to the Vietnam Unknown in 1984 at the administration’s request. The award was authorized to the physical member “who has been selected to lie buried in the Memorial Amphitheater of the National Cemetery at Arlington, Virginia.” But then, in 1998, media coverage that the Unknown was actually Blassie eventually led DoD to disinter and identify him, and his family asked that the MoH be given to them. Veteran groups agitated that Blassie was ineligible since he didn’t meet the public law criteria for the MoH, which normally would be true, although of course the statute had clearly waived these requirements. Ultimately, Defense Undersecretary Rudy De Leon denied the request for the MoH on the basis that it was only symbolically awarded, which wasn’t at all clear. Apparently to avoid similar issues or legal challenges, DoD then requested clarifying language from Congress, which passed a bill in 2004 that effectively superseded the original authorizing medal statutes for the Unknowns, which also referenced the physical bodies interred in the Arlington tomb. But DoD wisely decided not to inter another Vietnam Unknown, which means that no member is presently a representative of the Vietnam Unknowns, either symbolically or otherwise.
 * Anyway, this is a terrible story. I agree with DoD that Blassie did not merit the MoH, at least in principle, but DoD and Congress should have ended this practice as soon as it was clear that most all modern remains would be identifiable. This was a foreseeable and very regrettable outcome that embarrassed the government. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After further rumination, I have another observation: the actions here don't square with DoD's public explanation. If the original statutes authorizing the Unknowns medals were really so robust in their textual interpretation (that the medals were purely symbolic--which the statutes do not actually say), then there would have been no need to subsequently pass legislation to prevent the possibility of successful litigation on the issue. So either the 1998 SAF/GC legal review wasn't in accord with what De Leon said publicly, or something else forced them to abandon that position and request that Congress codify the issue. The six year lapse before OSD requested the clarification is also interesting, and I'm not sure how to explain it. By that time it would have been clear that they weren't going to designate another Vietnam Unknown (due in part to burying the alternate designate at sea), and certainly would never designate another for any other war. The earlier Unknowns were far less likely to be identified, so it seems most likely that OSD requested the clarifying statute out of concern that Blassie's family would litigate the matter. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this is a terrible story. I agree with DoD that Blassie did not merit the MoH, at least in principle, but DoD and Congress should have ended this practice as soon as it was clear that most all modern remains would be identifiable. This was a foreseeable and very regrettable outcome that embarrassed the government. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After further rumination, I have another observation: the actions here don't square with DoD's public explanation. If the original statutes authorizing the Unknowns medals were really so robust in their textual interpretation (that the medals were purely symbolic--which the statutes do not actually say), then there would have been no need to subsequently pass legislation to prevent the possibility of successful litigation on the issue. So either the 1998 SAF/GC legal review wasn't in accord with what De Leon said publicly, or something else forced them to abandon that position and request that Congress codify the issue. The six year lapse before OSD requested the clarification is also interesting, and I'm not sure how to explain it. By that time it would have been clear that they weren't going to designate another Vietnam Unknown (due in part to burying the alternate designate at sea), and certainly would never designate another for any other war. The earlier Unknowns were far less likely to be identified, so it seems most likely that OSD requested the clarifying statute out of concern that Blassie's family would litigate the matter. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After further rumination, I have another observation: the actions here don't square with DoD's public explanation. If the original statutes authorizing the Unknowns medals were really so robust in their textual interpretation (that the medals were purely symbolic--which the statutes do not actually say), then there would have been no need to subsequently pass legislation to prevent the possibility of successful litigation on the issue. So either the 1998 SAF/GC legal review wasn't in accord with what De Leon said publicly, or something else forced them to abandon that position and request that Congress codify the issue. The six year lapse before OSD requested the clarification is also interesting, and I'm not sure how to explain it. By that time it would have been clear that they weren't going to designate another Vietnam Unknown (due in part to burying the alternate designate at sea), and certainly would never designate another for any other war. The earlier Unknowns were far less likely to be identified, so it seems most likely that OSD requested the clarifying statute out of concern that Blassie's family would litigate the matter. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"I'll consider raising it to both organizations, as I have a relationship with them." - Just noticed this bit. Before you proceed any further, you'll need to declare what your relationship is. You should also review our Conflict of Interest (COI) guidelines, and going forward, it may be preferrable, (if not necessary), that instead of editing this page, (and any other MoH- or other US military award-related content), you instead post your requested edits on the article talk page so that another editor may make the changes for you. I will post a standard COI notice on your talk page for you as well so that you can review the guidelines. - w o lf  07:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Reviewed the guidelines. I'm a historical advisor to one of the organizations, meaning I sometimes recommend content based on my research. It's a purely voluntary relationship and I'm not employed by them. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So are my edits permissible? I'm not seeing a real conflict there, as the organization I advise doesn't employ me, or set official policy on the Medal. In any event, I'm not promoting them in any way, and never have in this forum. My edits are based on scholarship, which is why they asked me to advise them in the first place. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "So are my edits permissible?" - That's not up to me. You read the guidelines and then go from there. It basically goes by the honour system... unless you lie and get caught. (Also, give WP:PING a read for correct notifications.) Have a nice day - w o lf  01:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying. This article doesn't cite the organization I advise on any factual matter. The other organization (the society) has referred questions to me before, but I don't have a formal relationship with them. Ultimately, I think the only formal conflict would be if you were involved in writing the policy as a policy proponent at the service level or OSD, since the organizations don't actually represent policy at all, and are barred from advocacy by their charters. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Date USAF and Space Force medal established
Noticed that the box on the upper right claims "Air and Space Forces: April 14, 1965" as the date that medal was established, while the Army and Navy versions cite the statutory authority passage dates. It looks like the USAF date is referencing the date the new medal was first awarded (which is actually 1967, not 1965--the page has a few links to the 1965 date that look wrong), but the statutory authority dates to 1956, at this citation: An Act to Revise, Codify, and Enact into Law, Title 10 of the United States Code, Entitled “Armed Forces,” and Title 32 of the United States Code, Entitled “National Guard,” Pub. L. 84-1028 (1956), 70A Stat. 540. Think it would make more sense to reference that date, even if they weren't awarding the medal until 1967. Obviously the Space Force wasn't around at that time, so I think that should have a separate date of authorization--this appears to be part of the FY2022 NDAA, with this citation: Pub L. 116–283 (2021), 134 Stat. 3811. Otherwise it makes it look like the Space Force was authorized the medal much earlier than it existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, just did more digging. See: https://www.afpc.af.mil/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/421864/medal-of-honor/#:~:text=The%20medal%20is%20presented%20in,enemy%20of%20the%20United%20States. According to the AFPC, the USAF design was first awarded in 1967, so that's clear, so perhaps they were taking about when the design was approved but not awarded? Also, the USAF got the date of authorization wrong--they claim 1960, but that's obviously not true--I just pulled the law, and it's clearly 1956. Bonkers. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I updated the Air Force and Space Force authorization dates on the page, and also wrote to the AFPC requesting that they fix the date and add the Space Force date. I'm not very hopeful, as I've repeatedly asked them to remove Billy Mitchell from their MoH page, and their NCOIC claimed she didn't know who controlled the website, and thus it wasn't within their control! Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC
 * Can you explain why you added a separate date for the Space Force when they have the exact same medal as the Air Force? Garuda28 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, because they have a distinct statutory authorization, and the dates you were using were the dates established by Congress, not the date of design (if you were using that, they'd be the same). If you want to change it to date of design, then those are entirely different dates. The USAF medal authorization wasn't the same as the Space Force, because of course the Space Force didn't yet exist, so while that established the same medal, it wasn't authorized for Space Force personnel until 2021, per a separate act of Congress. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now received three emails from APFC recognitions today. The first says they are not in charge of their own website, so I replied noting that it was under their own command (it's www.afpc.af.mil). They then wrote another email saying they have no control over it and to contact the webmaster, and now I've received a third email requesting to recall the earlier email. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Latest from the AFPC: “Please advise this is under review and will be updated in the coming weeks.” Foxtrot5151 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When did the USAF and the Space Force amalgamate and/or the USAF MofH renamed the Air and Space MofH? Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just calling it that to distinguish it--there isn't a different formal name so far as I know (current AF regulations just call it "medal of honor," and the AFPC website hasn't been updated in years and isn't authoritative anyway--probably sourced from Wikipedia!). The higher level USAF MoH website includes Billy Mitchell, who wasn't even a MoH recipient, and also was not a major general: https://www.af.mil/Medal-of-Honor/Mitchell/. Interestingly, the USAF apparently has renamed some medals--the AF Achievement Medal is now the Air & Space Achievement Medal: https://www.afpc.af.mil/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/421869/air-and-space-achievement-medal/, same with this one: https://www.afpc.af.mil/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/421939/air-and-space-campaign-medal/. Apparently that's just because "Air Force" was in the original name? Interestingly, the awards manual doesn't yet reflect this renaming despite being published in late 2022, so I guess they're due for an update. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Going to agree with . There is no Army Medal of Honor or Navy Medal of Honor, it's just the Medal of Honor. The Army has a variant, the Naval Service (Navy and Marines) have a variant, and the Air and Space Forces have a variant. Garuda28 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three separate medals: the Army, Navy and Air Force Medals of Honor. The separate legislation creating the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard medals states each medal is for the service specified. Just because they are all named the Medal of Honor does not mean they are the same medal. They are all treated with the same respect and honor. I am unaware of any legislation which deems them variants of the one medal. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The root query was simply whether the AF MoH had been renamed, but since the service wasn't actually in the name, I think the answer is no. I've always treated the different statutes as authorizing different medals to the extent that they were materially discernible in eligibility criteria, particularly before they were mostly standardized in 1963 (with the exception of the Navy having longer statutes of limitations on recommendation and awarding, which has since been changed). Even today I think there's a difference in service culture that has a discernible impact on awards in spite of identical authorization statutes. For example, the marines being more stingy about combat decorations than the other services, which I think has been the case for decades. But to the extent that all services now fall under DoD oversight, the overall process isn't much different, other than perhaps who makes the initial recommendation (and what that is). Informal policy at the recommendation level does make a difference--the retroactive GWOT authorization that waived the statutes of limitation for many recent MoH recipients' upgrades was largely a reaction to a DoD survey that found the majority of field grades believed, incorrectly, that death was an informal prerequisite for a MoH recommendation. I think that was largely an army and marine corps problem, since that's where most of the recommendations originated. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits on the MofH article. If you want a laugh, look at the mid-2015 talk pages when I was trying to get my head around the number of awards. There were four different totals in the article and the two main references in 2015 for statistics, the US Army Center of Military History and the Congressional Medal of Honor Society had incorrect stats. The Center of Military History still has, the last time I checked, a note not to contact them about MofH errors. The Congressional Medal of Honor Society promptly sent me a pdf with the correct stats and apologised for a +2 glitch in their stats which has now been fixed. It was when I remembered that the Senate green books from 1963 to 1979 included Billy Mitchell that the stats finally lined up.
 * I do not fault your explanation as to eligibility criteria for each Medal of Honor but despite many aspects including the name being the same their origins and insignia are different. It is normal just to refer to the Medal of Honor and there is no need to refer to three Medals of Honor until required.
 * I prefer ‘Medal of Honor’ to the sobriquet ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ but quoting a Secretary of the Army in the 1970s seems a bit light compared to I think every President since Theodore Roosevelt referring to it at one time or another as the Congressional Medal of Honor. I agree that the Medal of Honor is correct, but it is not wrong to use a sobriquet.
 * There are two sections ‘Revoked’ and ‘27th Maine and other revoked awards’. In the latter it mentions that Mindil would have been the 20th double award. I was not aware of until recently that Adam McCulloch of the 27th Maine, who did volunteer to defend Washington, could have been the 21st double award. He was awarded the MofH with the USN at Mobile Bay. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Mitchell issue is really inexcusable, particularly since it was clarified by the committee that it was a Cong. Gold Medal and not a MoH (but you actually have to read the text of the bill, apparently a bridge too far). For decades his medal was listed in error in the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes, but apparently was removed after OSD published the valor database in the wake of the Alvarez case. USAFA has a statue of Mitchell listing him as a MoH recipient, although I'm told the plaque will be corrected eventually. I remember that the Center of Military History had an asterisk next to Mitchell saying it was likely a Gold Medal, but that they would continue listing it anyway because it was in the Senate report. I don't think they had much interest. CMH was very much rebuked and stripped of their authority to participate in the staffing for medal recommendations, which was a product of the mishandling of resubmissions of Jewish and Hispanic recipients for potential upgrades on discrimination grounds (what President Obama eventually awarded under the title Valor 24). The CMH chief at that time, BG(Ret) John Brown, recommending denying all of the upgrades on the grounds that he believed there should be direct evidence the recommendations were downgraded due to prejudice (rather than merely an inference), and that resulted in a reprimand from GEN Casey, who was then the chief of staff. Casey determined that CMH had exceeded their authority and would limit future medal advisories to mere validation of factual submissions, meaning that Army historians don't even meaningfully participate in advising SecArmy, SA decorations board, etc. While I think CMH probably did screw up, I think that's a terrible status quo, because the bureaucracy and senior officials don't do history very well.
 * The history of the medal's name is interesting. The attempt to formally add "Congressional" was actually at the behest of the CMOH Society, who claimed they often had to clarify which medal of honor they had won (which seems odd--does the public really confuse it with the other lesser known names?). It resulted in a proposed bill, committee report, and committee hearing from SASC in 1972. I'm sure that's still DoD's position today--it may be true that many or most presidents get it wrong, but most modern presidents wouldn't know one way or the other, so that's more of an issue with their speech writers, who probably are recycling prior awards ceremony scripts for the sake of efficiency (and I'm sure OSD and service policy proponents cringe every time they screw up the terminology). Notable that CMoH doesn't appear in any executive publications from the services, at least on military awards. I’m relatively certain that none of the controlling statutes use CMoH. I did find two that outdated statutes referenced CMoH offhand, while also using MoH as the primary reference: they were the Act of April 23, 1904 (33 Stat. 259, 274–275) for the Army MoH, and the Act of June 3, 1916 (39 Stat. 166, 214), which authorized the review board to revoke Army Medals of Honor and used the terminology “so-called congressional medal of honor.” The CMoH terminology was mistakenly used in legislation authorizing the CMoH society (36 USC 40501) and the Stolen Valor Act (18 USC 704), but I imagine this was because of different jurisdiction from committees that did not know any better. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The comments on Mitchell are sound but it is an issue for the Mitchell biography which states the National Museum of the Air Force describes it as a ‘Special Congressional Medal of Honor’. It then states that Mitchell medallion is ‘the only one of its kind in existence’ which is not special to the Mitchell medallion  but is a feature of most if not all Congressional Gold Medals.
 * I support your comments on the name of the Medal of Honor. It is always going to be an issue because of the generic name. It is appropriate and correct to say Medal of Honor is the official name but the public and the media will continue to use the sobriquet Congressional Medal of Honor. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In re: Mitchell, I actually wrote to the USAF museum a few months back and asked them to consider changing that wording, and upon checking just now, I'm happy to report that they did so (it now says Congressional Gold Medal): https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/198456/gen-billy-mitchells-congressional-gold-medal/. Also wrote to the US Senate historian about terminology on their websites about the MoH, and they replied saying they would consider fixing the language, but want to study the matter first: https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsMedalHonor.htm and https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Awards_Honors_Medals.htm.
 * I asked a friend working at the Pentagon to check the Hall of Heroes listing of MoH recipients, and Mitchell's name has been removed (at least on the MoH section, but think it was there as recently as 2011, per earlier publications). I audited the claim by pulling Mitchell's OMPF, and there was nothing there to support it. I think the mistake was traceable to a biographical error in the early 1950s--Air University had published a bunch of biographies of senior Air Force / Air Corps leaders, and they mistakenly listed Mitchell as a MoH recipient. Of course, when it's a martyred figure like Mitchell, that's pretty clearly a thumb on the scale. Mitchell's incorrect rank and MoH claim had infected dozens of USAF publications, including the USAF standards handbook that is used for promotion board questions. It's an interesting case study of when mistakes become so ubiquitous that they override any primary sources and nobody questions them anymore. Was thinking about this phenomenon earlier in the week after reading an Atlantic article on the expression "drank the Kool-Aid," which is factually incorrect--apparently Jim Jones poisoned his followers with Flavor Aid. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update on the nomenclature issue ("congressional" vs. simply MoH). I wrote to the Senate Historical Office in May asking them to remove the term "congressional" from their websites on the medal, and sent supporting documentation from DoD along with a survey of the statutory authority (only a few statutes have used the "congressional" terminology, most outside of DoD jurisdiction, such as the Stolen Valor Act or Congressional MoH Society Act, etc. Anyway, the Senate historians studied the matter along with their counterparts in the House and DoD, and they came to a consensus to remove "congressional" from their websites on the medal. They have not yet been corrected, so you'll see the original language for now: https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Awards_Honors_Medals.htm and https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsMedalHonor.htm Foxtrot5151 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Active-duty Medal of Honor recipients
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)