Although not a constituent of yours I feel constrained to write to you regarding your statements on the floor of the Senate on March 13, 1996, when you saw fit to defend the Senate Armed Services Committee in its action on the promotion of Navy Commander Robert Stumpf to the grade of Captain.

       Having served during my active duty career in the Navy as the Head of Officer Promotion Plans for that service and testified at length before both the House and Senate in that capacity, it was incumbent on me to study and know in detail the provisions of Title 10, U.S. code that were applicable. Drawing on that background knowledge I wrote to Senators Thurmond, Nunn, Warner & Coats with copies to Senators McCain & Lott protesting the action of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the case of Admiral Arthur and Commander Stumpf. In that letter (a copy of which is appended) I implied that the Senate lacked integrity on the issue of the double standard now being used to judge the performances of women as opposed to men in operational or combat outfits.

       What concerned me immediately upon reading your statement on the floor was your characterization of the flood of letters received by certain members protesting the action taken on Commander Stumpf as an "ugly lobbying campaign." How, may I ask, can you regard the interest on the part of professional military officers who have devoted their lives to the service, in how the careers of some of our best officers are being ruined and their families devastated by a network of radical feminist activists, as "ugly?"

       None of us have asked for anything but "due process" in Commander Stumpf's case and in accordance with the laws put on the books by the Congress of the United States. How is it that our interest in the welfare of our sailors is defined as "ugly" while the paid industrial lobbyist that contributes heavily to a senator's campaign in return for his vote is considered benign?

       Not one person that I know from retired four star officers on down was asked by Commander Stumpf to intercede in his behalf. Rather we have looked upon the entire process of viewing "suspected involvement in -- inappropriate behavior --" (to use your own words) as insufficient reason to deny otherwise highly qualified individuals the advancement they have earned through their performance. Indeed, as soon as you use the word "suspected" as reason enough to denigrate a person's character you fall prey to the rumors, innuendo, false accusations and hearsay evidence that characterized the bulk of the "tailhook" investigations -- so much so, in fact, that they were not admissible in a court of law.

       In your capacity as a senator no one can dictate to you how you make up your mind on voting for or against confirmation and I have no quarrel with how you personally make your judgment calls. However, I believe that you are dead wrong in your statement that Commander Stumpf (or anyone else on his side for that matter) believes promotion is either an inalienable right or that he should not be subject to the Senate's confirmation process. Quite the contrary, Commander Stumpf's suit is directed against the Secretary of the Navy for not having awarded him his captain's grade when the vacancy for it occurred following his confirmation by the full Senate which had been unanimously consented to previously on 24 May, 1994.

       With regard to his selection for promotion itself, Commander Stumpf was regarded best fitted by a board of active duty admirals that was convened by the Secretary of the Navy in accordance with the pertinent sections of Title 10, U.S. Code, dealing with promotions and which includes the oath taken by each member that he will "-- without prejudice or partiality, and having in view both the special fitness of officers and the efficiency of the naval service, perform the duties imposed upon him -- ."

       The selection board was privy to the transcript of the record of the Court of Inquiry convened to hear testimony on Commander Stumpf's conduct at the "Tailhook" meeting. That court found him neither derelict in his duty nor engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer. That same record has been made available to the Senate Armed Services Committee and should have been made available to you prior to your statement on the Senate floor.

       If any conduct considered "criminal" occurred it did not happen in the presence of Commander Stumpf. Thus your use of the word "criminal" in connection with his presence at "Tailhook" only serves to "poison the well." As the word "criminal" is inflammatory it leaves the impression on those who hear or read your words that Commander Stumpf just barely avoided incarceration and/or dismissal from the service as well. That may have been the purpose of SASC staff members who must have advised you if they did not also let you read the entire transcript, but I should think that you would have insisted on having access to all the available information prior to your taking the floor in the Committee's behalf.

       Further, if you consider watching a stripteaser perform as a "criminal" act you had best prepare to create jail space for most of the adult males in this country. If anything is criminal about this whole affair it is, in my opinion, the way the DoD Inspector General and his minions conducted the investigation of the "tailhook" incidents. The recent revelations regarding Lieutenant Cooney is a case in point. He was listed by the investigative report as having lied about his presence on the Hilton's third deck on the Saturday night in question despite his own denial.

       Lieutenant Cooney thought he was clean following the DoD investigation and did not learn until his request for augmentation into the regular Navy was denied that his file was marked adversely with the charge of lying about his whereabouts on the night in question. When he revealed documentation to prove that he was in San Diego -- not in Las Vegas -- at that time, it took a courageous newspaper reporter and an equally courageous TV producer to publicize the fact -- and only weeks later did the Senate quietly take action to authorize his requested augmentation as an officer in the regular Navy.

       With regard to the five rhetorical questions that you pose for answers prior to confirmation regarding an officer's performance in grade, every one of them is answered in detail during the deliberations of the selection board. This is precisely what the law intended for promotions from O-1 to O-8 inclusive. The senior officers that make up all boards base their decisions on those professional attributes as the current law now demands.

       It was the intention of the Congress in the Officer Personnel Act to free the services from the influence of political favoritism (read "political correctness" in today's parlance) to the maximum extent possible in selections up to and including the two star level -- even to the extent that a directed selection by a service secretary must be by a description in the board's precept of the specific qualifications required by the position, as opposed to a named individual.

       To be specific in the case of Commander Stumpf, however, all your questions must be answered in the affirmative -- academically and professionally -- at sea, in the air and ashore. His leadership and effectiveness is attested to by his combat service where he demonstrated unflinching courage in the face of an armed enemy. The respect he has earned from his juniors and seniors alike is nowhere better demonstrated than by the outpouring of support he is receiving in this hour of trial from active and retired military in all grades and all categories.

       Further, he has shown great respect for the Secretary of the Navy in his public comments following the revelations of the dispute in which they are involved -- even to the extent of asking only that he be awarded his number as captain in due course on the list that was confirmed by the Senate in the suit itself.

       The bottom line question you raise concerns Commander Stumpf's dedication to moral leadership. Turning to the American Heritage dictionary (1969 edition, 2nd printing), I find that "moral" is given six definitions, only one of which pertains to sexual conduct. Having already disposed of the possibility that commander Stumpf was himself involved in anything that could be viewed as sexual misconduct from the findings of the court of inquiry, one may turn to the definitions that more nearly pertain to the environment and calling in which Commander Stumpf and all that long line of naval officers from John Paul Jones to the present have been brought up, to wit: "human action in discerning what is good versus what is bad, what is right versus what is wrong."

       The best "moral" test of which I can think, in the light of commander Stumpf's prospective assignment should he finally make the grade of captain, would be one involving the competence of those in his charge and the effects on all the others in that tightly knit team, should he be pressed into deviating from the highest standards of performance against his own best judgment. To put it another way, in an environment where the concentration of raw power that characterizes the aircraft carrier can easily lead to a major disaster from the slightest mishap, would he be willing to relinquish those high standards of performance just to meet "politically correct" objectives imposed upon him by others?

       How would an answer to that last question in the affirmative affect your decision on confirmation, Senator? Would you not rather have it answered with a "flat NO?" Would not the safety of lives and effectiveness of the equipment in a multi-billion dollar weapons system be an overriding criterion in your deliberations? What better example of "moral obligation" could an officer demonstrate in his sense of right and wrong than rigid adherence, based on his own training and experience, to the integrity of his views in the face of "political" pressure to change?

       It is my opinion, Senator, that the "villain" of this piece continues to be the Senate Armed Services Committee. The selection of Commander Stumpf to the grade of captain was done by a board of highly qualified admirals, with access to his entire record, in accordance with the law. His selection was approved by both the military and civilian heads of his department and forwarded to the Senate for confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. The Senate acted on the promotion list, which included his name, in the affirmative -- according to their own rules. Then a "rump" session of the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to pressure the Secretary of the Navy to remove Commander Stumpf's name from that list against the Secretary's own better judgment after he was already confirmed.

       Now his name appears on a second promotion list of captains heading for Senate confirmation put there by another selection board of admirals that must, by law, be made up of different members. It will be a matter of interest to those of us who have devoted our lives to this Navy how you will speak on the floor and how you will vote when his name comes up for confirmation again.

                                                                                                         Sincerely yours,

                                                                                                         Clarence A. Hill, Jr.
                                                                                                         Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Copies: Senators Thurmond, Nunn, Warner,
                             McCain, Lott, Coats
                             SecNav John Dalton
                             CNO  ADM J.M. Boorda
__________________________________________________________________________
End of RADM C.A. Hill, Jr.'s reply.


                                                                                              Return to:


                      Home               The Bob Stumpf Affair            Mark Hill Corner            The Annapolization of America


                            SecNav Dalton's Rebuttal to Stumpf Affair                        Gittins Reclama on Stumpf Affair