Is Tim Walz a Case of Stolen Valor?

When enough isn’t enough. We feel as if we really haven’t squeezed everything out of this yet, so…

The folks at MilitaryPhony have sent us their work on Tim Walz. Although they are waiting on official military records, they decided to summarize the issues surrounding VP Candidate & Minnesota Governor Walz.

As a community with expertise in Stolen Valor, we are being asked:

Are the issues surrounding Tim Walz a case of stolen valor?

 

OVERVIEW

The media coverage surrounding Tim Walz has sparked discussions about whether his actions amount to stolen valor. While some may argue that his claims, such as serving as a Command Sergeant Major and carrying weapons of war “in war,” could be seen as attempts to gain credibility, they may not meet the legal threshold for stolen valor. The debate around stolen valor often stems from a broader range of embellishments and false claims within the military community.

Some discrepancies have been scrutinized regarding Walz’s specific claims, such as his retirement as a Command Sergeant Major and references to serving in Afghanistan. While it is clear that specific claims were made, such as being a retired Command Sergeant Major, the context surrounding these claims may require further investigation.

While some aspects of Walz’s case may lean towards embellishment rather than stolen valor, it is crucial to consider the nuanced discussion and broader implications of the term “stolen valor” in a military context. Additional details may emerge that shed more light on the situation, and opinions within the veteran community may vary on the significance of these claims.

In conclusion, as the situation regarding Tim Walz continues to unfold, it is essential to remain observant and attentive to any new developments that may arise. While there has been scrutiny surrounding his claims, definitive evidence of Stolen Valor, particularly involving specific medals, has not surfaced thus far.

From the strict aspect of being Stolen Valor investigators, an army of thousands of people is helping by banging on keyboards and searching for information. So, there’s that.

That said, the available information to date suggests a pattern of embellishment rather than clear violations that would constitute Stolen Valor. While public opinion may be forgiving, the veteran community may hold a more critical perspective. Ultimately, individual interpretations of the situation may vary.

Without a clear violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, it is unlikely that Tim Walz will be found guilty of Stolen Valor based on minor infractions alone. Should there never be a compelling “smoking gun” that emerges, his case may be subject to being decided by “a thousand tiny paper cuts.”

THE END GAME

Addressing concerns within the veteran community directly and with transparency is advised, as honesty and acknowledgment of any misleading language can help mitigate controversy.

Navigating such situations effectively requires openness and a willingness to address any perceived discrepancies, as ignoring or downplaying the issue could prolong tensions. Lessons learned from other cases can provide valuable insights into managing similar controversies in the future.

A BULLETED, POWERPOINT-ESQUE OVERVIEW

The summary of the claims and issues surrounding Tim Walz are as follows:

Direct Claims:

• Retired Command Sergeant Major (CSM E-9)
• Served for 24 years in the National Guard
• Carried a weapon of war “in war”

Indirect Claims:

• Served in Afghanistan
• Implied Special Forces service by wearing SF insignia

Opinion:

• References to ‘abandoning’ his troops by avoiding deployment

.

RETIREMENT AS COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

Walz retired and initially should have been a Master Sergeant (E-8) rather than a Command Sergeant Major (E-9).

.

Administrative paperwork discrepancies exist regarding his retirement rank.

This is not a debate—Walz did retire and ‘administratively’ should have been a Master Sergeant (E-8) rather than a Command Sergeant Major (E-9). From what we read, he weighed the options and willingly gave up his appointment as a Command Sergeant Major to retire and run for office.

Oddly enough, his paperwork says that he was a CSM (E-9) when he retired in May 2005, but there was a correction four (4) months later to MSG (E-8). If one were to play semantics, which we don’t get the sense that Walz was doing, it is *technically* true that he retired as an E-9. That is only because the administrative paperwork did not catch up to him until four (4) months later.

Note that Walz did not sign, perhaps not being present.

NGB 22 (similar to a DD-214, but for the NG)

 

NGB 22A (similar to a DD-215, but for the NG)

DISCLAIMER: The paperwork above was obtained from a trusted source. We have requested our own official military documents to establish a clean chain of custody. We suspect that any official documents will confirm the above, but we still want to put out this disclaimer when we have not directly obtained the documents.

.

SERVING “IN WAR” AND/OR AFGHANISTAN

Claims and references to serving in Afghanistan have been made, but Walz visited Afghanistan on a Congressional visit in 2011, not as a military member on active duty.

This clip from C-SPAN may be the most compelling regarding the ‘Retired Command Sergeant Major’ and ‘served in Afghanistan’ claims. Walz hears his resume regarding military service and seems to nod in agreement but does not correct the host. Also, Congressman Gibson calls Walz “Sergeant Major” throughout the 41-minute segment, and Walz never corrects him.

.

Then, there is this newspaper article.

“CARRIED WEAPONS OF WAR, IN WAR” CLAIM

Walz claimed to have carried weapons of war in combat, which he later acknowledged as a mistake.

.

This was probably the sharpest point for implying Walz was in combat. He didn’t benefit financially from the statement, so it appears it was either for “street cred” or simply to bolster the point he was making at the time. We have not seen other claims of Walz being in combat surface, but people are still looking.

He did say he ‘misspoke’ about being ‘in war,’ but is that enough to satisfy people who are upset over this claim?

SPECIAL FORCES BALLCAP

Photos show Walz wearing a ball cap with the Special Forces insignia, implying Special Forces service, though no direct claims have surfaced other than the numerous photos.

RETIREMENT TIMING

The timing of Walz’s retirement has been debated, but this issue is outside our jurisdiction and is laced with opinion and speculation about his motive. We don’t venture into this territory.

MILITARY RECORDS

Official military records for Tim Walz have been requested, but they are not expected to differ significantly from the information already made public.

FINAL CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION

Ongoing scrutiny and developments in this situation are being closely monitored.

No definitive evidence, such as specific medals, proving Stolen Valor has been revealed yet.

The available information suggests embellishment rather than clear violations of Stolen Valor.

Public opinion may differ from the perspective of the veteran community.

It is unlikely that Walz will be found guilty of Stolen Valor through minor infractions without clearly violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.

As stated previously, there’s room to consider mitigation…

Walz may want to consider directly addressing concerns within the veteran community. Transparency is highly recommended to navigate the situation effectively. Ignoring or downplaying the issue may prolong the controversy.

We’ve been here before and seen how these things play out.

Category: Afghanistan, National Guard, Stolen Valor Act