Army Secretary Christine Wormuth -- in a dramatic and rare move -- on Tuesday fired one of the service's top generals following an Army inspector general investigation that concluded he improperly intervened in the process for selecting senior commanders.
Gen. Charles Hamilton, who had been the head of Army Materiel Command, was removed after what officials described as a flagrant abuse of authority aimed at securing a leadership role for a subordinate officer who was found unfit for command and had an inappropriate relationship with the general, according to the IG report.
The move marks the first time in nearly 20 years an Army four-star general has been outright fired and comes after a Military.com investigation in March detailed how he attempted to intervene on behalf of the subordinate officer. The publication's report earlier this year immediately triggered both his suspension from the command leadership position and the inspector general probe.
Read Next: Air Force Osprey Parts Failure Triggers Another Military-Wide Flight Pause for Troubled Aircraft
"Based on the findings of a Department of the Army Inspector General investigation, the secretary of the Army has relieved Gen. Charles Hamilton of command," Cynthia Smith, a service spokesperson, told Military.com in a statement.
The IG investigation also found that the Army's top uniformed leader, Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, who was assuming some of the duties as George's No. 2 officer, acceded to Hamilton's request to boost the subordinate lieutenant colonel toward a command position without pressing him for a justification, even after she was twice deemed to be unqualified.
Piatt retired in January.
"This was an abuse of authority, from Hamilton [to] the chief," one general officer who was involved in the command selection process for the lieutenant colonel told Military.com on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation, referring to George. "It's hard to imagine [Hamilton] didn't know what he was doing. There was skepticism from some on this process, and now we've seen it's open to cronyism.”
"We had a renegade general ... but I'm more disappointed that the highest levels of the chain of command let this happen without asking questions," the general officer said.
The Army's relatively new process to select senior commanders, called the Battalion Command Assessment Program, or BCAP, was specifically designed to eliminate outside influence.
However, Military.com found -- and the IG investigation confirmed -- that Hamilton orchestrated a complex lobbying campaign to undermine the process and boost a lieutenant colonel who worked under him, had a friendly relationship with him, and was seeking a battalion command post.
The lieutenant colonel scored in the bottom 1% out of about 800 candidates for command, failing the initial BCAP panel in a 0-5 vote after being found to be an "ineffective" leader.
After his subordinate failed the BCAP assessment, Hamilton sought and was successful in getting her an unusual second consideration by the panel -- a situation that has never happened in the program's history since it began in 2019, aside from instances involving technical or administrative snafus.
Military.com is withholding the name of the subordinate lieutenant colonel because it found no evidence of wrongdoing on her part, though the Army's inspector general report says she downplayed her relationship with Hamilton when interviewed by investigators.
She also failed her second attempt but was placed on a list for command anyway, alongside other candidates who passed the program. Candidates who pass the BCAP are ranked by order of merit and then selected for various command posts.
Hamilton's subordinate was placed on the command selection list at the behest of George, who oversees the BCAP program. She was removed from the command selection list by Wormuth only after Military.com's reporting.
Hamilton's Lobbying Campaign
The BCAP includes a series of assessments of a lieutenant colonel's command potential, including a physical fitness test, appraisals of communication skills, a blind interview with a panel of five randomly chosen generals, and a psychological evaluation akin to those done for special operations candidates.
To avoid bias, panel members are provided minimal details about the candidates and conduct the interview with the applicant concealed behind a curtain. Adding another layer of impartiality, the generals are selected only hours before the panel to prevent any lobbying efforts.
Ahead of the lieutenant colonel's assessment panel on Oct. 30, 2023, Hamilton asked officials overseeing the BCAP whether he could review the peer and subordinate reports for her, making requests to Mike Arnold, at the time a civilian special adviser to the Army Talent Management Task Force who has since left the service; and Col. Robert O'Brien, who until last summer oversaw the command assessment program.
O'Brien, who penned a memo last year establishing a timeline of the entire incident, said Hamilton's request for documents was denied.
Hamilton felt the lieutenant colonel received poor treatment in some of her previous assignments that could have colored her assessments. He asked to personally view her panel interview, a request that had never been made before, according to Army inspector general investigators.
Generals are frequently invited to the BCAP to see the process, and commonly watch the panels for high and low performers. But those generals do not select which candidates they view, and Hamilton never expressed interest in viewing other candidates, the IG report noted.
Ahead of the first panel, Hamilton contacted one of the BCAP staffers to discuss which generals would be on the lieutenant colonel's review panel, the IG found, though he denied having done so when interviewed by investigators.
The lieutenant colonel bombed the panel, something Hamilton blamed on a psychologist's presentation to panel members, arguing it was inappropriate and set her up for failure. It's unclear what the psychologist's presentation on the woman entailed, and the Army IG's report did not note any specific grievances Hamilton had with those findings. The psychologists on the panel have worked in that field for at least a decade and previously dealt with special operations.
Hamilton immediately asked for a repanel, which was granted by O'Brien solely based on the request.
Hamilton then called at least four generals who were on deck to panel the BCAP candidates. They included Maj. Gen. Jeth Rey, Maj. Gen. Trevor Bredenkamp and Maj. Gen. Hope Rampy.
In those conversations, Hamilton asked them about voting philosophies and the BCAP process. That contact was reported to BCAP officials, with some of the generals saying Hamiton told them something to the effect that they might be grading someone he knew -- a move Army investigators found to be him leveraging his rank.
The lieutenant colonel then failed the second panel.
"Gen. Hamilton's action appeared focused on excusing [the woman's] low rating at BCAP rather than identifying systemic issues with BCAP. At no point in his interview [with Army investigators] did Gen. Hamilton talk about [her] performance, potential or why she was qualified to be a battalion commander," the Army inspector general wrote in the investigative report.
Candidates who fail the BCAP are required to wait a year for a repanel, but the lieutenant colonel's second panel happened within just two days. Hamilton sought to get an exception to that policy for her, first having her email him letters of recommendation. The two communicated almost exclusively through private email accounts, making obtaining records either by the press or Army investigators virtually impossible without their consent.
Hamilton then went to George in early November of last year, about a week after the second panel. He emailed George that the lieutenant colonel was "not allowed to compete on an equal playing field," but was scant on specifics of what led him to that conclusion.
Friendly Relationship
"Our investigation found a preponderance of evidence to support a finding that Gen. Hamilton and [the lieutenant colonel] shared a prohibited relationship that caused an actual or perceived partiality or unfairness," according to the IG report. "Despite all the circumstantial evidence, we were unable to determine conclusively that Gen. Hamilton and [the lieutenant colonel] were involved in a sexual relationship."
Both of them downplayed their relationship to investigators, according to the IG. In reality, they frequently communicated outside of official Army communication tools, traveled on official business together, and worked together for years.
Hamilton also seemingly made efforts to inflate the lieutenant colonel's record, including awarding her the Legion of Merit when she was a major, listing the same achievement as one cited for another, lower award -- in violation of Army regulations. The award is traditionally reserved for more senior officials and is effectively the top non-valor award in the service.
Army investigators also found that Hamilton extended the period of time he oversaw her yearly job evaluations, breaking service norms, and gave her the highest marks authorized, presumably to set her up for the BCAP.
George's Role
Investigators say Hamilton presented George and Piatt "incomplete information" when he argued that the lieutenant colonel had been unfairly assessed and deserved to be certified for command regardless of her evaluations, when in fact she ranked in the bottom 1% out of 811 candidates up for command that cycle.
George told another official, whose name was redacted from the Army IG investigation, that he did not want the lieutenant colonel to go back for a third BCAP evaluation and that he "wanted it fixed." He directed that she be allowed to slide into the command selection list through a complicated series of administrative moves.
A spokesperson for George did not respond to a request for comment.
Senior Army staff went through a lengthy series of steps to make that happen, including an entire briefing on the risks, and what could happen to the BCAP's integrity if it were publicized that a clearly unqualified officer was placed in command. She was finally ranked 100 out of 811 candidates for command, presumably being scored ahead of candidates who passed the selection process.
Because the command selection process is exclusively an Army program with no oversight from the Department of Defense, George has ultimate authority over how that list is constructed. However, numerous staffers in George's office had concerns over him subverting the process, according to multiple Army officials with direct knowledge of the situation.
Some also described George as having a lackadaisical approach to management, or having too much trust in his staff and, by extension, his subordinate commanders -- in this case, Hamilton.
The investigation found that neither George nor Piatt asked notable follow-up questions to Hamilton's request, despite no known precedent for such a move.
"The focus was to find a way to 'get to yes' and the staff worked to meet that objective," the IG report noted.
By the time George and Piatt got involved, it was already clear the lieutenant colonel was a low performer. The memo from O'Brien inventorying Hamilton's attempt to subvert the process had also been written. It's unclear whether George's staff ever made an attempt to contact O'Brien.
Gravity of the Firing
Historically, removing a four-star general from service is a move reserved for presidents or defense secretaries, and extremely rare, underscoring the severity of the allegations against Hamilton.
"It was my honor to serve our nation, and I've been blessed beyond what I've deserved to lead our troops for the past 43 years," Hamilton said in a statement to Military.com. "While I wish I was able to complete my command, we all take the uniform off and we don't always control the timing. I look forward to continuing to serve our nation in new ways."
Wormuth spent weeks meticulously weighing the decision, and it will likely be her last significant act as secretary amid a new incoming administration. She also took an in-person meeting with Hamilton in the Pentagon in recent weeks at his request, something she is not obligated to do.
Those in the senior ranks are typically offered opportunities to quietly resign -- and their conduct is also rarely made public in detail.
The last Army four-star general known to have been outright fired was Gen. Kevin Byrnes, then the commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Command, in 2005. Byrnes' removal stemmed from an extramarital affair with a married woman. Gen. Stanley McChrystal was forced to resign in 2010 after a scathing Rolling Stone article revealed him and senior aides mocking then-Vice President Joe Biden and other key Obama administration officials.
It wasn't immediately clear what rank Hamilton will retain. The decision was forwarded to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
It’s unclear whether George will face any disciplinary action. His spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
!["Grad" self-propelled rocket launcher fires toward Ukrainian position](http://images02.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail_large/public/2024-12/ApNewsroom_Russia_Ukraine_97738.jpg?itok=yZou9LL3 "In this photo taken from video released by the Russian Defense Ministry on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2024, a "Grad" self-propelled 122 mm multiple rocket launcher fires toward Ukrainian position in the Russian - Ukrainian border area in the Kursk region, Russia. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service photo via AP)")
