RESTORE ‘THE INTEGRITY OF THE NAVY’S PROMOTION PROCESS’: END THE KAFKAESQUE ABUSE OF COMMANDER STUMPF

(Washington, D.C.): In recent weeks, an unlikely
chorus of voices from across the political spectrum —
including a variety of television pundits, syndicated
columnists, editorial boards and national security
experts — has expressed outrage at a rank miscarriage of
justice: Collusion on the part of the Secretary of the
Navy and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
to deny one of that uniformed service’s most
distinguished officers the promotion to which he is
clearly entitled.

The Right Stuff

The officer in question is Commander Robert Stumpf,
a career naval aviator with a record of exemplary
performance in combat and peacetime. A Naval Academy
graduate, he was, among other decorations, honored for
heroism in the course of 22 strike operations against
Iraq. For one of these missions, he was awarded his fourth
Air Medal with the citation:

“Despite several weapons and aircraft
problems, [Commander Stumpf]…led his strike through
hundreds of miles of heavily defended enemy airspace
to set up for the attack. While maneuvering for final
launch conditions at low altitude, his section
encountered a withering barrage of continuous
anti-aircraft fire on three sides, followed by the
launch of up to ten enemy surface-to-air missiles.
Undaunted by the harrowing salvo, he courageously
pressed forth, successfully launching his weapon
while still under fire. Commander Stumpf’s courageous
leadership and aerial skill reflected great credit
upon himself and were in keeping with the highest
traditions of the United States Naval Service.”

Cmdr. Stump’s superior skills in the cockpit were
further recognized with his assignment to command the
Navy’s Blue Angels precision flying team — turning in
what his superior described as “outstanding
performance in the most dynamic and challenging flying
job in the world today.” And his leadership
abilities have been acknowledged in both glowing fitness
reports ⁽¹⁾ and
other evaluations by his civilian and military superiors
and in the repeated recognition conferred on units under
his command.

The Real Scandal is Not What
Cmdr. Stumpf Did at Tailhook

In fact, it was one such recognition that
brought this model officer and gentleman to grief. In
September 1991, Cmdr. Stumpf served as the commanding
officer of VFA-83, an F/A-18 squadron based at Naval Air
Station Cecil Field, Florida. VFA-83 was judged to be the
best strike-fighter squadron in the Navy and was,
accordingly, designated to receive the prestigious
“Estocin” award honoring that extraordinary
achievement. Since this award was to be presented at the
35th annual symposium of the Tailhook Association in Las
Vegas, Cmdr. Stumpf was ordered to travel from
Cecil Field to Las Vegas to attend.

When the flight plan of the C-9 jet assigned to
transport Navy personnel to and from Tailhook ’91 was
changed in such a way as to conflict with Cmdr. Stumpf’s
responsibilities as commander of VFA-83 to lead his unit
in a long-scheduled, five-day and Air Wing-ordered
training and weapons evaluation exercise, he made
alternative transportation arrangements. These involved
flying cross-country together with a wingman in two of
his squadron’s F/A-18s. The two pilots used the trip
to George Air Force Base in California to perform
airways, formation, radar operations and other required
flight proficiency training — a fact that was duly
documented at the time.

At a luncheon ceremony at the Tailhook convention on
7 September 1991, Cmdr. Stumpf accepted the Estocin
award. Late that evening, two junior officers from his
squadron undertook on their own initiative to host
in their room on the 28th floor of the Las Vegas
Hilton a promotion celebration (traditionally known in
the Navy as a “wetting down” party). This
was not a squadron-sponsored event like the
“hospitality suites” set up on the Hilton’s
third floor — the scene of much of the lascivious
and sexually abusive behavior for which the Tailhook ’91
event became notorious. Cmdr. Stumpf was not
responsible for authorizing or planning the “wetting
down.” While he was, as “skipper” of
his squadron, naturally invited to attend this party,
when he did so, he was not the senior officer
present.

In the course of the party, initially two
“exotic dancers” appeared and began performing;
after a short while one left. The other continued her
routine, making at one point an approach toward Cmdr.
Stumpf, which he waved off. Shortly thereafter, Cmdr.
Stumpf left the room and retired for the evening. After
his departure and unbeknownst to Cmdr. Stumpf, the
partygoers induced the stripper to perform oral sex on
one inebriated junior officer (who was not, incidentally,
under Commander Stumpf’s command).

These facts have been established and formally
documented by a Navy Board of Inquiry. They have been
confirmed by Secretary of the Navy John Dalton as a
result of his own inquiry into the matter, including a
lengthy interview he personally conducted with Commander
Stumpf. Importantly, on 17 September 1993, the
three-officer Board found that “Commander Stumpf
was not derelict in the performance of his duties nor did
he engage in conduct unbecoming an officer on the evening
of 7 September 1991 at the Las Vegas Hilton Hotel.”
What is more, Secretary Dalton wrote the Senate Armed
Services Committee on 22 August 1994: “As a result
of my exhaustive review, I am convinced that Commander
Stumpf did not engage in misconduct while attending
Tailhook ’91. My lengthy discussion with Cmdr. Stumpf
underscored what I had found in his record of
distinguished and heroic service to his country as a
naval aviator.”

Enter Kafka

Cmdr. Stumpf’s exemplary record, decorated combat
heroism and recognized leadership abilities prompted the
Navy’s Fiscal Year 1995 Captain Selection Board to select
him as “fully and best qualified for
promotion.” His name was forwarded to the Senate on
11 March 1994 and the Senate confirmed Cmdr. Stumpf’s
promotion on 24 May 1994.

While he was waiting to “pin on” his
Captain’s eagles and assume his position of Deputy
Commander of Carrier Air Wing Seventeen (U.S.S.
Enterprise), the Navy discovered that a clerical error
had been made in presenting the Senate Armed Services
Committee (SASC) with Cmdr. Stumpf’s promotion paperwork.
According to the Center for Military Readiness:

“A 1992 [Navy] directive require[s] that the
Senate be notified of any possible implication of
misconduct at Tailhook ’91, regardless of the outcome
of investigations and disciplinary
proceedings…Secretary Dalton, [Chief of Naval
Operations] Admiral Michael Boorda and then-Marine
Commandant Carl Mundy wrote to the SASC on January 4,
1995, asking to be released of the ‘flagging’
requirements because all post-Tailhook legal
proceedings had been completed. The SASC rejected
this reasonable request. Perpetual flagging of the
files of 140 Tailhook ‘suspects,’ whether cleared or
not, restores McCarthyism in our time.”

When the Armed Services Committee was informed that
Cmdr. Stumpf’s file had not been “Tailhook
flagged,” it directed that his Senate-approved
promotion be put on hold. While the Navy honored that
request, Secretary Dalton undertook personally to look
into the circumstances that resulted in the procedural
snafu and to satisfy himself that the officer in question
was, in fact, worthy of promotion. The Secretary’s
initiative produced his 22 August 1994 letter which
determined that:

“…Despite the administrative error, there
was no intent to avoid disclosure to the Committee of
[Tailhook ’91] certification information regarding
Cmdr. Stumpf….Most importantly, I also thoroughly
and carefully reviewed the entire matter relating to
Cmdr. Stumpf’s activities while attending Tailhook
’91 and his qualifications for promotion to
captain…I assure you that I undertook this review
with all options on the table, and I was fully
prepared to withhold appointment of Cmdr. Stumpf to
captain if such action was warranted.”

‘Damn the Torpedoes’

Incredibly, despite this strong affirmation of a
promotion already approved by the U.S. Senate, the Senate
Armed Services Committee declined to rescind its
direction to the Navy to keep Cmdr. Stumpf’s career on
ice, or take any other formal action with regard to his
case, for a further fifteen months. Even a second
letter from Secretary Dalton — in which he stated
“in addition to the endorsement by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense [the Stumpf nomination has] my
personal support as well as my earnest request that the
Committee complete its action on [this nomination] at its
earliest convenience” — failed to energize the
Committee.

Finally, on 25 October 1995, a secret
“executive” session of the Senate Armed
Services Committee was convened to consider the Stumpf
promotion. Even though a quorum of the Committee’s 21
members was not present, the SASC approved over the
objections of a single member — Arizona Republican
Senator John McCain (himself, a former naval aviator) —
a letter suggesting that Secretary of the Navy Dalton not
promote Cmdr. Stumpf. That letter, which was sent on 13
November 1995 by Chairman Strom Thurmond and Ranking
Member Sam Nunn, said in part:

“…Had the information regarding Commander
Stumpf’s activities surrounding Tailhook ’91 href=”96-D11.html#N_2_”>⁽²⁾ been
available to the Committee, as required, at the time
it acted on his nomination, the Committee would not
have recommended that the Senate confirm his
nomination to the grade of captain. Accordingly, it
is the view of the Committee that Commander Stumpf
should not be appointed to the grade of
captain.”

‘Why?’

In addition to the Committee’s pique over the
innocent administrative error that prevented the Tailhook
“flagging” of Cmdr. Stumpf’s file, the
plurality voting to deny him promotion apparently did so
on two grounds: First, they believe that Cmdr. Stumpf
improperly and abusively made use of an F/A-18 en route
to and from Tailhook ’91. And second, they take exception
to his presence at, and failure to stop, a striptease
involving personnel under his command.

It strains credulity that a congressional
committee with a distinguished record of service on
behalf of a strong and professional U.S. military would
deny the Navy one of its promising young officers on such
grounds. This is especially true given the
actual circumstances in which these two
“actions” occurred:

• First, Cmdr. Stumpf used an F/A-18 aircraft
  assigned to his squadron so as to satisfy two
  otherwise conflicting sets of orders requiring
  him 1) to receive a prestigious award on behalf
  of his unit and 2) to lead that unit through an
  important training evaluation exercise. What is
  more, his utilization of that aircraft allowed
  him to perform required flight proficiency
  training for himself and one of his subordinates.
• And second, Cmdr. Stumpf was not responsible for
  arranging for a stripper to perform at a private
  party honoring the promotion of several of his
  junior officers. ⁽³⁾
  When invited, he agreed to attend such a
  morale-boosting event, as any competent leader
  (whether military or civilian) would be expected
  to do. He arrived before the “exotic
  dancers” did and left a short while after
  they began performing. He was not present when
  one of the strippers committed a lewd act on one
  of his subordinates. His presence and conduct
  was, in short, entirely consistent with Navy
  regulations.

Despite Navy Secretary Dalton’s personal familiarity with
these facts and his repeated affirmations of Cmdr.
Stumpf’s fitness for promotion, he nonetheless responded
to the SASC letter of 13 November 1995 with his own
memorandum, dated 22 December 1995. In it, Dalton
informed the Chief of Naval Operations that he had
concluded “in light of my duty to maintain the
integrity of the promotion process” that Cmdr.
Stumpf should not be appointed to the grade of captain.

That memorandum was placed in the Commander’s
permanent file. Also in that file is a 30 June 1995
letter to Cmdr. Stumpf from the Chief of Naval Personnel,
in which the Navy bureaucracy was obliged to justify the
delay in his promotion to captain — scheduled to occur
on 1 July 1995 — by reference to regulations that permit
promotion delay under five circumstances. The only one of
these which could conceivably be said to apply to Cmdr.
Stumpf is the fifth: “There is cause to believe that
the officer is mentally, physically, morally or
professionally unqualified.” It is hard to
imagine a more grotesque mischaracterization of a man of
Bob Stumpf’s character and abilities.

What Now?

These materials — along with the far more voluminous
record that show them to be what they are, Kafkaesque
distortions and miscarriages of justice — are
currently under review by the Navy’s Fiscal Year 1997
Captain’s promotion board. It is to be earnestly hoped
that the professional military officers assigned to serve
on that board will not permit this outrage to continue by
now passing over Bob Stumpf for promotion, effectively
prematurely terminating an exceptionally promising
career.

Et Tu, Dalton? Assuming that the
promotion board does, in fact, do its job, the burden
will next fall to Secretary Dalton. href=”96-D11.html#N_4_”>⁽⁴⁾ It will be
a signal test of his ability to lead the United States
Navy if he once again buckles under to the worst
sort of political blackballing.

Secretary Dalton must be aware that many are watching
his actions carefully. Some are the scores of other fine
officers currently flying hazardous missions during long,
difficult deployments away from home in defense of their
country. They have no way of knowing whether their
careers might also be capriciously finished simply
because they innocently attended a popular professional
function known as Tailhook ’91.

Then there are the thousands of others in naval
aviation and other important military occupations who are
appalled at what they see as the
“Schroedering” of America’s armed forces — the
deliberate emasculation of the combat arms done in the
name of political correctness and reverse discrimination
at the behest of people like Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-
CO). The gravity of the resulting morale problem
increasingly afflicting the uniformed services is evident
in the following data from the Center for Military
Readiness (CMR):

“…According to Navy Times (November 6,
1995), the Navy recently announced unusually generous
bonuses of as much as $80,000 to persuade some
mid-level officers flying F-14s and F-18s to stay in
the Navy. Despite the financial incentives, sources
tell CMR that in some areas, groups of aviators have
handed in their resignation letters at the same
time.”

Of course, if Secretary Dalton is reluctant to
risk a fight with the Armed Services Committee or the
full Senate over a new confirmation request for Cmdr.
Stumpf, he could simply reverse his action of last
December and proceed with the Commander’s Senate-approved
promotion. The SASC clearly left open that
possibility when it wrote in November 1995: “The
Committee recognizes that, in light of the Senate having
given its advice and consent to Commander Stumpf’s
nomination, the decision to promote or not to promote
him rests solely within the Executive Branch.“
(Emphasis added.)

What about the SASC? In the event Secretary
Dalton does opt to present a new promotion request
to the Senate, it is incumbent on the Armed Services
Committee to act more forthrightly and honorably in
considering such a nomination. Cmdr. Stumpf should be
afforded an opportunity to appear before the Committee,
something he was not allowed to do during all the time
the SASC-imposed hold blocked his earlier promotion. In
particular, he must be allowed to know — and respond to
— all information the Committee considers relevant to
evaluating his fitness. And any vote by the Committee
must be held in public and involve at least a quorum
of the membership.

The Bottom Line

Some good may yet come out of the travesty that has
been perpetrated upon Bob Stumpf. That would be the case
if his promotion drama brings an end to the practice
of attaching a “Scarlet ‘T'” (a.k.a.
“Tailhook certification”) to the files of
qualified personnel, individuals who happened to have
attended that function — but did nothing wrong in the
process. Similarly, reforms must be made to ensure
that military officers are not denied the right to know all
the information that is being shared with the Armed
Services Committee.

Finally, the Stumpf case ought to be the beginning
of the end of the Schroedering of the military, in
general, and the Navy, in particular. The repeated
instances of keelhauling the careers of able warfighters
that some perceive to have been insufficiently sensitive
to contemporary sexual politics in Washington is not only
depriving the Navy of some of its finest officers. It is
also discouraging untold others from wanting to continue
to serve a Nation that seems so indifferent to the
sacrifice and hardships entailed in defending the United
States of America.

(1) One such assessment, conveyed
in a 24 July 1995 letter signed by Admiral J.L. Fleming
— the Commander, Strike-Fighter Wing, U.S. Atlantic
Fleet — described Cmdr. Stumpf as “unquestionably
one of the finest officers I have ever known. A leader
and a warrior with no equal, he will be a superb Air Wing
Commander. He is the kind of officer we need to lead
naval Aviation into the next century…”

(2) The Committee incorrectly
cited as one such activity “[Cmdr. Stumpf’s]
presence at Tailhook ’91 in a hospitality suite hosted
by his squadron.” (Emphasis added.)

(3) Interestingly, the commanding
officer of another squadron, VT-24, did sponsor a
striptease in an official hospitality suite. According to
the Court of Inquiry convened to review Cmdr. Stumpf’s
conduct at Tailhook, that officer “received no
disciplinary or administrative sanctions as a result of
his approval of the striptease performance.”

(4) Interestingly, the Chief of
Naval Operations Boorda has been strongly supportive of
Stumpf, going so far as to say publicly that he will
continue to fight for the Commander’s promotion even if
it means he can no longer serve as CNO.