There has been a lot of media coverage about Tim Walz, which has prompted us to publish something. We have been asked in simple terms if this is a case of stolen valor.
When one says “this” or “it” it is important to pinpoint which claim or aspect of the case they are talking about – i.e. the retirement as a Command Sergeant Major, the use of the term “in war,” or retiring prior to his unit’s mobilization to active duty.
The Tim Walz case has various aspects that warrant careful consideration. It is crucial to differentiate between his different claims.
We would say “no”—none of the claims rise to the level of stolen valor, as we would define it. However, each of you would also have to define ‘stolen valor’ because it has a different meaning to different people, so many may disagree. We will explain.
Saying “no” to the question of whether it constitutes stolen valor is more closely tied to the specific definition of stolen valor rather than solely focusing on Walz’s claims and actions as a whole.
Opinion
I want to preface my thoughts by mentioning that I am a veteran, and the following reflections are solely my personal opinion. While I have been involved in numerous stolen valor cases, it’s important to note that my opinion does not hold more weight than that of anyone else. I do not claim to speak for the veteran community or the stolen valor community, but I will share my perspective.
Heated Debates
Within the veteran community, there is often a tendency to compare combat experiences or length of service to establish credibility. Individuals who have been in combat, suffered wounds or injuries, have PTSD, or lost comrades may feel deeply passionate about what they perceive as stolen valor or embellishment. These experiences, along with officially awarded medals, hold significant weight within the community but may not be fully understood or appreciated by civilians. This explains the intense reactions you see to military-related claims, such as debates among Army veterans regarding the Q course, badges, or beret insignia. While these debates may seem insignificant to outsiders, they are deeply significant in the military community.
Stolen Valor
You can view stolen valor in two forms. First, there is the formalized, capitalized Stolen Valor, which violates the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. Based on this standard, we would argue that Tim Walz’s actions do not qualify as stolen valor. While his claim of being “in war” could be seen as an attempt to gain credibility, it may not meet the threshold for stolen valor under the law. Who can truly know Walz’s motives? It could have been a long-term “street cred” or merely a momentary lapse in judgment to bolster his point about weapons. There is not much evidence that has surfaced that he repeats the claim of being in war.
It is worth noting that falsely claiming to be a Navy SEAL or Marine sniper does not necessarily constitute Stolen Valor under federal law. Different states may have varying interpretations of this issue.
Then, there are various state laws on top of federal laws.
Minnesota has a state stolen valor law, under a 2023 statute:
609.475 IMPERSONATING A MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER, VETERAN, OR PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
Whoever falsely impersonates an active or reserve component military service member, veteran, or public official with intent to wrongfully obtain money, property, or any other tangible benefit is guilty of a misdemeanor.
For this to be even applicable, one would have to first establish state of residence.
stolen valor
Additionally, there is the lowercase stolen valor, which encompasses a broader range of embellishments and false claims. This category includes instances where individuals exaggerate their military accomplishments, often called “valor vultures.” Claims such as being a Navy SEAL, Army Ranger, Marine sniper, or participant in specific battles fall under this umbrella.
Often, you will see ‘stolen valor’ as a huge miscellaneous folder that a lot of things are filed under. Not to minimize its impact on people’s emotions, just giving an analogy. Not saying that the broad use of this term is wrong, because it *is* functional as a quick handle to know what someone is talking about. That, I will concede.
Summary
In conclusion, regarding stolen valor, within the context of these definitions, I would characterize Walz’s case as more aligned with embellishment rather than stolen valor. However, it is essential to acknowledge that additional details may yet surface with this case. We are monitoring it.
So, simply summarizing my viewpoint as we “assert it is not stolen valor” would oversimplify the nuanced discussion presented here. It is crucial to consider the broader context and implications of the term “stolen valor.”
Many common terms can have different meanings depending on the context, so it is essential to delve deeper into the specifics of the discussion rather than oversimplifying complex issues.
WALZ CLAIMS – DIRECT AND INDIRECT
There is a strong political component to this case, but we try and stay with strictly verifying military claims. Here is a summary listing and we will go into each one a little deeper.
-
- DIRECT: Retired Command Sergeant Major (CSM E-9)
- DIRECT: Served for 24 years in the National Guard
- DIRECT: Carried a weapon of war “in war”
- INDIRECT: Served in Afghanistan
- INDIRECT: Special Forces, by wearing SF insignia
- OPINION: References to abandoning his troops by avoiding deployment
RETIREMENT AS COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR
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).
It is important to note that this corrective action was administrative and not punitive.
If one were to play semantics, which we don’t get the sense that Walz was doing, it is *technically* accurate 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.
NGB 22 (Similar to a DD-214, but for the NG)
NGB 22A (Similar to a DD-215 for admin correction)
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.
Putting aside the paperwork, Walz has made numerous claims—directly and indirectly—that he is a retired Command Sergeant Major and Sergeant Major. He even made this claim while running for the governor’s office.
Then, there is plenty of video clips that are surfacing that you can hear the claim directly from Walz. Here are just a few:
SOURCE: RadarOnline
SOURCE: NoVA Campaigns
Then, there was a C-SPAN interview where the host went over the biography of each guest and ran it by each guest. She stated “Command Sergeant Major” and that Walz served in Afghanistan. Congressman Walz did not reply verbally in the positive but gave a head nod to signify agreement. Nor did he dispute the references. Additionally, Congressman Chris Gibson referred to Congressman Walz several times as a Sergeant Major and Walz never corrected him.
SOURCE: https://www.c-span.org/video/?405292-3/us-military-forces-reduction
Then, there was an excellent X (formerly Twitter) post by Bree A Dail that highlighted an official Congressional Coin of Walz that claimed the Command Sergeant Major rank. This is significant because it points to knowing intent or willful intent – or being aware of one’s actions. Of course, a staffer could have made this decision and Congressman Walz made not have noticed it, but that may not be plausible since he has made the claim himself (as above in the videos).
Summary – At this point, I don’t think there is a dispute that the claim of “retired Command Sergeant Major” was made or not made. There should be a concession about this.
SERVING “IN WAR” AND/OR AFGHANISTAN
To finish with the Command Sergeant Major references, we are going to go into the Afghanistan references. You saw the one above in the C-SPAN video, but here is a reference in a printed newspaper.
Summary – At this point, it appears obvious that an assumption was made about Walz serving in Afghanistan. He was in Afghanistan on a Congressional visit in October of 2011, but not as a member of the military on active duty. There were no direct quotes that Walz served in Afghanistan, only the head nod during the C-SPAN interview. There were several references in print – a book and newspaper articles – but you can not directly attribute those mistakes to Walz. Loosely, you can make a case that it is puzzling why he did not correct some of these claims or issue a statement to make things clear he did not serve in Afghanistan.
“WEAPONS OF WAR, THAT I CARRIED IN WAR”
By now, you have probably heard the claim and seen the video of Walz saying he carried weapons of war in war. Here is the clip:
SOURCE: X Harris Campaign
Walz acknowledged this as a mistake and said he misspoke. Whether that is enough for some is an individual decision. Other than references to Afghanistan, we have not seen any other claims of being in war or combat.
SPECIAL FORCES BALLCAP
Numerous photos circulate of Walz wearing a ball cap with the Special Forces insignia, which implies service in a Special Forces unit.
We have yet to see a printed or video claim of Walz saying he was a member of Special Forces. That may demand further scrutiny, and the Special Forces community may feel differently.
We would like to see additional claims before we pay any attention to this. Not giving it attention is not the same as feeling it is insignificant. Individual opinions may vary.
RETIREMENT TIMING
This issue is currently being discussed, but this debate is outside our jurisdiction. It was actually a subject in the media long before Walz was tapped as a vice presidential candidate.
MILITARY RECORDS
Although we have requested official military records for Tim Walz, we don’t suspect there will be much difference from what has been put out in the public so far.
FINAL CONCLUSION
We will stay vigilant and closely follow developments in this situation. Given the ongoing scrutiny from various parties, additional details may yet emerge.
If there were a definitive piece of evidence, often involving specific medals, proving Stolen Valor, it likely would have been revealed by now.
Much of the information available seems to point towards embellishment rather than clear and apparent violations. While Govenor Tim Walz may weather this storm in the court of public opinion, the veteran community may present a more challenging audience. Nevertheless, opinions on this matter are bound to differ.
We do not believe that he will be found guilty of stolen valor through a cumulative effect of minor infractions. A clear violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 must be present to establish guilt. For now, there isn’t one. If individuals perceive certain infractions as falling under a broader interpretation of stolen valor, that interpretation is also a matter of personal judgment.
To address concerns within the veteran community, it is recommended to confront the issue directly. Acknowledge any language used that may have implied information not substantiated by official military records. Transparency is key, as people often appreciate honesty and are willing to forgive mistakes. Ignoring the issue or downplaying its significance may only prolong the controversy. This approach, in my view, is the most effective way to navigate such situations.
And we’ve seen these situations and how they play out.
