That's a pathetic reach.
Your "proof" only indicates how far you have to stretch to try to make that connection. And still come up short.
Do you have any idea how common O-4 is? How low they are? What influence they may have?
There is no claim he was a staff or intelligence officer connected to an important command.
Your argument makes the opposite point very, very well. One can only wonder about the motives and intellectual honesty of anyone who would attempt such a spurious claim.
If this is persuasive for them, what other nonsense do they believe?
Arf