Suspended 4-Star US Army General Demands Job Back: ‘I Have Been Brutally Honest’

Conservative News DailyAugust 23, 2024

General⁣ Charles Hamilton, who was recently suspended from his position as head of U.S. Army ⁣Material Command, is requesting the reinstatement of his command. The suspension arose from allegations that he inappropriately influenced promotion processes to benefit‌ a subordinate, a black female lieutenant⁣ colonel. Hamilton asserts that‌ his actions were necessary to combat perceived racism ⁢within military⁢ evaluations.

In a letter to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, Hamilton expressed his desire to continue leading and emphasized his commitment to addressing disparities affecting Black ‌officers. Despite the investigation that ⁢revealed his attempts to lobby fellow generals⁤ on behalf of ⁢the lieutenant colonel, ⁣Hamilton denies ‌exerting pressure for her⁣ promotion and‌ maintains he‌ did⁢ not have any final ‌authority over⁢ the selection ⁤decision.

Ultimately, the officer in question was⁢ deemed “ineffective” by an assessment panel,‌ which voted against her promotion despite Hamilton’s intervention. The structure of the Command Assessment Program is designed to minimize external influence, but the investigation highlighted‌ Hamilton’s significant impact on⁣ the process, raising concerns about fairness and propriety⁢ in military promotions.

A four-star general who was suspended after allegedly putting his hands on the scales concerning the promotion of a favored subordinate is now demanding his command be returned to him, claiming there is racism in these military processes.

Gen. Charles Hamilton, who was the head of U.S. Army Material Command before his March 22 suspension, is now asking to have his command reinstated.

Hamilton was originally suspended after pulling strings in promotion boards for the benefit of a black female lieutenant colonel, an intervention he claims was necessary to ensure fairness in supposedly racist military processes.

“I respectfully ask that you allow me to resume command and continue leading our soldiers and civilians in one of the Army’s most important and impactful commands,” Hamilton wrote to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth in a letter recently obtained by Military.com.

The letter added: “I have been brutally honest about my concerns with the Command Assessment Program’s disparate impact on Black officers.”

The trouble for Hamilton rose to the surface following an investigation by Military.com into the general’s alleged abuse of authority.

The investigative report found Hamilton tried to push the lieutenant colonel through promotion boards by lobbying other generals. When the subordinate officer was found unfit for command by the first panel, Hamilton was able to convince officials to put on a second panel.

Although the panel is supposed to be anonymous, Hamilton seemingly knew who to contact.

“This was a pressure campaign,” a general told Military.com in March. “[Hamilton] has a lot of influence; this violated the integrity of how the best officers are selected to run units.

“This was abnormal; it was unprofessional. He should have known better.”

The candidate officer failed her second panel despite Hamilton’s potential influence.

The board found she was an “ineffective” leader, with a 3-2 vote deciding the matter against her.

In his letter to Wormuth, Hamilton does not deny he contacted members of the promotion board but does dispute that he pressured the top brass for the benefit of his favored candidate.

“It is true,” Hamilton wrote, “I contacted general officers whom I believed were on Command Assessment Program panels.

“However, I never pressured or even asked any of them to deem [the lieutenant colonel] ready for command.”

The Command Assessment Program is structured in a way to prevent and lessen outside influence, with panel members interviewing candidates from behind a curtain. Those running the board are also not given names or photographs of candidate officers.

To back up his claim that he acted appropriately, Hamilton stressed that he did not have final say on the subordinate officer’s candidacy or the panels’ decisions regarding her.