Tim Walz: A Story of Stolen Valor and Cowardice

A Perspective from a Retired Command Sergeant Major

By Mike Walker, CSM (USA Retired)

From the Non-Commissioned Officer's Creed:

"I will not compromise my integrity, nor my moral courage. I will not forget, nor will I allow my comrades to forget that we are professionals, noncommissioned officers, leaders!"

Integrity is defined as "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles."

Without question, Tim Walz falsely represented his accomplishments while in the armed forces. He lied about the rank he attained and abandoned his men shortly before their deployment to combat. He also falsely claimed to have spent time in a combat zone. Does this rise to the level of "stolen valor" and cowardice?

Stolen Valor Defined:

Stolen valor, as defined by law in the United States, specifically refers to the act of falsely claiming military decorations or medals with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits. This legal definition was solidified by the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which was enacted after the Supreme Court struck down a previous version of the law in 2012 for being overly broad and infringing on free speech rights.

Tim Walz's military record, particularly accusations of "stolen valor" and misrepresenting his rank as a Command Sergeant Major (CSM), has stirred significant debate. Just last week, I retired at the rank of Command Sergeant Major after 28 years of service, including four combat deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa. I was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) while serving in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province 2008.  I want to share with the public some truths known to those who serve in the military that may shed light on the Tim Walz stolen valor and cowardice controversy.

First, it is true that Tim Walz served in the Nebraska and Minnesota Army National Guards for 24 years. His retirement paperwork clearly states that he retired as a Master Sergeant, which is no small accomplishment, but it’s not a Command Sergeant Major. He has been accused of misrepresenting his military service, particularly his rank and experiences in combat zones. The core of these accusations revolves around Walz's claims:

1. That he "retired as a Command Sergeant Major." 

2. That he served in a combat zone and carried a rifle, and that he and his men suffered psychological impacts from their service.

3. That he retired before he knew his Battalion was scheduled to deploy to combat.

Did He Retire as a Command Sergeant Major?

Walz claimed for almost two decades to have retired as a Command Sergeant Major. Even during the Democrat National Convention, he was introduced as a Command Sergeant Major in his bio video. It is mentioned in his campaign literature, on his website, and he even created a congressional challenge coin with the CSM rank commemorated on it. The discrepancy has led critics, including political opponents and veterans, to label his actions as "stolen valor."

When a Master Sergeant is promoted to the rank of Command Sergeant Major (CSM), it is conditional.

• In my case, I was asked to sign a memorandum committing to at least three years of service to the battalion in the role of CSM.

• All CSMs are required to complete the United States Sergeant Major Academy (USASMA), which takes 18 months - two years to complete the Non-Resident Course, which mostly National Guard, Army Reserve and a limited number of active-duty senior NCOs attend.  It’s a rigorous course, difficult to complete while balancing life, a civilian career, and military obligations.  The graduation rate hovers around 50 percent. 

According to the Dossier Walz was conditionally promoted to this rank in April 2005 but retired in May 2005, effectively serving for 45 before submitting his retirement. Furthermore, Walz never completed the CSM Academy. The AP reports that while campaigning for congress in 2006 Walz claimed “I’m a retired Command Sgt Major.”  Not only did he not fulfill his commitment to serve, but he also never completed the Sergeant Major Academy, and retired a Master Sergeant. 

Walz lied about his service rank and used it while campaigning for Congress, Governor, and now Vice President. He clearly benefited from lying about his rank, financially and politically. He was elected to Congress and earned a lucrative congressional pension. Easily earning him the title of stolen valor.

Guilty of Stolen Valor on Count 1

Did He Carry Weapons in War?

Tim Walz has publicly spoken about carrying and using a weapon in war. The contention deepens with Walz's statements about carrying weapons "in war”.  He was assigned a station far from the combat zone in Italy.  Italy is the assignment everybody wants. Despite his service, including a deployment to Italy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Walz never saw direct combat.  During a time when our brothers were seeing high casualty numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan. His unit provided base security in Europe, which, while crucial, does not align with the common understanding of being "in war."  That deployment did not qualify as a “right shoulder deployment.”  Again, Tim Walz is guilty of lying about his military exploits and claiming combat experience. He never served once in a combat zone, nor did he ever use his weapon in war.

Guilty of Stolen Valor on Count 2

Did He Abandon His Unit Prior to Deployment to Combat?

The timing of Walz's retirement from the National Guard, just before his unit received deployment orders to Iraq, has been a point of criticism. Critics argue this decision was motivated by his political ambitions, as he announced his run for Congress shortly thereafter. This narrative paints Walz as someone who prioritized his political career over military duty.

It's worth considering the broader context and nuances of military service. Walz knows that most Americans are unfamiliar with the process units go through when receiving “orders.”  Before “mobilization orders” are issued for deployment, there is always a “Notice of Staffing” (NOS) or warning order given. The NOS states that a unit is expected to deploy and provides theater of service and expected dates of mobilization. Usually, the NOS lacks an exact date but includes the month and year of deployment, theater of operation and the nature of the assignments. In most cases, units are aware of upcoming deployments years in advance.  There is no way that he accepted the position of CSM without knowing his unit was being mobilized.  

There's a consensus among some former National Guard members, including those who served in leadership roles over Walz, that he was aware of the impending deployment to Iraq before he retired. This sentiment is reflected in comments suggesting that Walz had knowledge of the deployment schedule, possibly as early as November 2004, which was months before his control number for promotion, and he officially retired in May 2005. This fits with the order in which units receive deployment orders from higher. Especially National Guard units. 

In an interview, Tim Walz's former Command Sergeant Major Doug Julin stated that Walz knew about the deployment in November 2004, well before his retirement in May 2005. Julin's account suggests that Walz assured him, that he would deploy with the unit but later retired.  This absolutely left his battalion and brigade in a difficult position.  The hard truth is his former Soldiers were far better off without Walz leading them.    

The chaplain of his battalion, CPT Bjertness, called Walz’s decision to abandon his Solders and unit “cowardly” in an interview with the New York Post. The CSM who replaced Tim Walz and the mother of a soldier from the battalion killed on the deployment have also called Tim Walz a coward.

For a chaplain to call a leader a coward, clearly defines a lack of Army Values in the accused. It also leaves a person wondering how big a piece of garbage do you have to be to have the Chaplain call you a coward?  Having served on four combat deployments, I understand the sacrifice and difficulty deployments can have on a Soldier’s family.  While periodically service members seek to avoid deployment, it’s absolutely disgraceful for a senior leader to abandon his Soldiers in the face of combat. 

Guilty of Cowardice on Count 3

In conclusion, a person doesn’t have many opportunities in life to prove the strength of their character. Tim Walz failed catastrophically. When the call came, he ran and abandoned his men. Instead of proving his moral courage, he proved his cowardice. Then he spent the next 18 years lying about his service and benefiting from the accomplishments of others. He committed stolen valor and proved he has no integrity. He violated the very essence of the NCO creed. He is a disgrace to the uniform he claims to have worn and is unfit for higher office.

The Views Expressed Are Those Of The Individual And Not Those Of The Department Of Defense, Or The Department Of Homeland Security, Or The Coast Guard.