Exclusive | Tim Walz a ‘coward’ and ‘traitor’ for retiring from military before Iraq, says...

SFC John Davis - I haven't seen anything that confirms he was "erroneously promoted". He was provisionally promoted. And, he wasn't on the promotion list when he was approved for retirement. He had already been promoted, but he hadn't fulfilled the requirements to keep that rank after retiring.

SFC John Davis - He was conditionally promoted, so therefore he was no longer promotable. What part of that is not clear? The fact that his promotion was revoked is further proof that the promotion indeed occurred (even if conditionally). You're pole vaulting over non-existent mouse turds here.

SFC John Davis - Two things. First, You also said that "he lost his promotable status due to his upcoming retirement." Losing a promotable status means that someone had not yet been promoted. You also said he was "erroneously promoted". You were quoting regulatory verbiage saying that someone loses their promotable status when approved for retirement. Since nobody has shown that his retirement was approved before his promotion (which, in your words, would have made it "erroneous"), that whole talking point is immaterial. Until someone provides proof otherwise, it was a legitimate promotion.

SFC John Davis - You're obviously not getting my points, so I'll just move along by saying "Your attempts to convince me to dislike/distrust this guy are not working."