## The Specific Language of the 1917 Board
The language the 1917 review board used in its findings — “convincingly displayed valor in combat against the enemy” — was not arbitrary. It reflected a deliberate policy choice by the Army and by the Congress that had directed the review.
By 1916, the Medal of Honor had accumulated a range of awards made under varying standards over fifty years. Some were for specific acts of combat valor — running forward under fire, capturing an enemy position, rescuing wounded comrades from danger. Others were for sustained distinguished service, for participation in campaigns, for actions that were meritorious but not necessarily the specific kind of valor that the award’s most celebrated recipients had shown.
The 1904 legislation had tried to sharpen the standards by requiring that recipients be commissioned officers or enlisted personnel who had distinguished themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty. The 1916 congressional direction to review past awards was an effort to bring older awards into conformity with that sharpened standard.
The board’s criterion — “convincingly displayed valor in combat against the enemy” — was an interpretation of the 1904 standard, and it was applied retroactively to awards made under earlier and different standards. This retroactive application was the core of the controversy. The men who received their medals in 1863 or 1864 or 1865 had not done so under the standard the 1917 board was now applying. Some of their awards would have met the new standard; others, like Walker’s, would not.