Posted on Jun 30, 2015
Board recommends that former Green Beret receive a General Discharge. Do you agree/disagree with the Board's recommendation? Why?
40.4K
135
36
10
10
0
An Army board of inquiry has recommended a general discharge for a decorated former Green Beret, finding no clear evidence the soldier violated the rules of engagement while deployed to Afghanistan in 2010.
Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, accused by the Army of illegally killing an unarmed, suspected bomb-maker, would retain most of his retirement benefit under a recommended general discharge under honorable conditions. While cleared of a law of armed conflict violation, the board did determine his conduct was unbecoming.
The government had sought an other-than-honorable discharge.
Golsteyn's lawyer Phillip Stackhouse called the Army's ruling "deficient" and said Golsteyn would appeal. The government, he said, did not specify or work to substantiate any unbecoming behavior separate from the alleged law of armed conflict violation. In other words, the board made two different decisions for the same alleged conduct.
"It makes no sense. It's a defective finding." Stackhouse told Army Times. "They nicked him for conduct unbecoming with no specific findings."
Army Secretary John McHugh, who already stripped Golsteyn of a Silver Star and his Special Forces Tab, will decide whether to accept the board of inquiry's recommendation. Regulations dictate he can only act more favorably to Golsteyn than the general discharge prescribed by the panel, Stackhouse said.
Stackhouse said the appeal will be filed after the full transcript of the hearing is assembled, which could take over a month. In the meantime, he said, Golsteyn's discharge will proceed in parallel to the medical board process in determining the specifics of retirement benefits.
Stackhouse said Golsteyn remains unavailable for interviews, but did say that his client felt betrayed by the Army over the past few years.
"It's very fair to say he feels betrayed. We talked about that today. I also think that he feels vindicated by the testimony that has been presented: that there was witness after witness after witness after witness that testified to his moral courage, his decision-making and his character," Stackhouse said.
All along, Stackhouse and other Golsteyn supporters have maintained the Army investigation failed to find any corroboration of the allegation, which stemmed from Golsteyn's video-taped polygraph during a 2011 job interview with the CIA.
No physical evidence was found in the Army investigation (of which the Army Times acquired a redacted version). Golsteyn allegedly admitted in the videotaped interview with the CIA that he shot, buried, dug up and burned the body of the victim after the victim identified and threatened an Afghan informant.
However, tests of multiple burn pits came up negative for human remains, according to the investigation. Witnesses also provided no corroboration to the allegation, and most also effused praise for Golsteyn's character and capabilities.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/06/29/board-ex-green-beret-mathew-golsteyn-should-receive-general-discharge/29477523/
Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, accused by the Army of illegally killing an unarmed, suspected bomb-maker, would retain most of his retirement benefit under a recommended general discharge under honorable conditions. While cleared of a law of armed conflict violation, the board did determine his conduct was unbecoming.
The government had sought an other-than-honorable discharge.
Golsteyn's lawyer Phillip Stackhouse called the Army's ruling "deficient" and said Golsteyn would appeal. The government, he said, did not specify or work to substantiate any unbecoming behavior separate from the alleged law of armed conflict violation. In other words, the board made two different decisions for the same alleged conduct.
"It makes no sense. It's a defective finding." Stackhouse told Army Times. "They nicked him for conduct unbecoming with no specific findings."
Army Secretary John McHugh, who already stripped Golsteyn of a Silver Star and his Special Forces Tab, will decide whether to accept the board of inquiry's recommendation. Regulations dictate he can only act more favorably to Golsteyn than the general discharge prescribed by the panel, Stackhouse said.
Stackhouse said the appeal will be filed after the full transcript of the hearing is assembled, which could take over a month. In the meantime, he said, Golsteyn's discharge will proceed in parallel to the medical board process in determining the specifics of retirement benefits.
Stackhouse said Golsteyn remains unavailable for interviews, but did say that his client felt betrayed by the Army over the past few years.
"It's very fair to say he feels betrayed. We talked about that today. I also think that he feels vindicated by the testimony that has been presented: that there was witness after witness after witness after witness that testified to his moral courage, his decision-making and his character," Stackhouse said.
All along, Stackhouse and other Golsteyn supporters have maintained the Army investigation failed to find any corroboration of the allegation, which stemmed from Golsteyn's video-taped polygraph during a 2011 job interview with the CIA.
No physical evidence was found in the Army investigation (of which the Army Times acquired a redacted version). Golsteyn allegedly admitted in the videotaped interview with the CIA that he shot, buried, dug up and burned the body of the victim after the victim identified and threatened an Afghan informant.
However, tests of multiple burn pits came up negative for human remains, according to the investigation. Witnesses also provided no corroboration to the allegation, and most also effused praise for Golsteyn's character and capabilities.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/06/29/board-ex-green-beret-mathew-golsteyn-should-receive-general-discharge/29477523/
Justice
Special Forces
Discharge
UCMJ
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 21
17
17
0
Something "feels" wrong here.
If he isn't actually convicted of anything, why is he being recommended for a General? I "thought" lack of proof would be sufficient to prove Honorable service.
If he isn't actually convicted of anything, why is he being recommended for a General? I "thought" lack of proof would be sufficient to prove Honorable service.
(17)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Under standards of conduct, the "appearance" of a violation shall be treated as a violation--I don't agree with that, but the standard of conduct for a commissioned officer is higher than for a private. Whether or not his "confession" was fully admitted, it seems to have been a material fact, even if not proven--his utterance is enough. Since we don't have all the facts, allowing him to accept a general in lieu of a harsher discharge or simple resignation "for the good of the service" seems to allow him more benefits for future VA treatment, and gets him out of the spotlight. Let's see what the appeals process does...
(5)
(0)
14
14
0
We've all been in long enough to know that it doesn't take 95% convincing evidence for a discharge. A scary trend is emerging. Public opinion is playing a much larger role in military decisions. If it is perceived that something wrong happened, someone's head must be offered up. Civilian oversight of the military is one thing, offering up a sacrificial lamb to satisfy PR and PC, that's the wrong answer. I'm not saying that's what happened here but my spider sense tingles when I read stories like this.
(14)
(0)
13
13
0
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I am no expert on the process or this case, but having been investigated by the DAIG and DODIG for a BS allegation (trumped up charge/allegation), and which caused me to "flagged" for over 3 years, I can tell that "Conduct Unbecoming" and "False Official Statements" are favorites of the Army (I can't speak for DOD), as the are subjective and hard to disprove. They are "arbitrary and capricious" charges, which are had to disprove. I believe they are used as icing on the cake, or when nothing else will stick.
For my case, which was not like this... It was over a referred (bad) OER I gave to a LT who was involved in a sexual assault. He complained to everyone... EO, and eventually the DAIG. It ended up at the DAIG as a Whistleblower Reprisal Case, and when they finished their investigation (lame and directed (they had a desired result in mind) as it was), they confirmed the allegations - charges, and added conduct unbecoming and false official statement for good measure.
Why, because those (A) sound really bad, and they hard to disprove.
In my case I had to go through a promotion review board (should I stay on the promotion list; already selected for promotion), and command review review board (should I stay on the command list).
In the military - my view- especially with the IG, EO, or administrative proceedings, you must prove you are not guilty. They don't have to prove you are guilty, like a criminal trial. You also don't face your accusers, or get to cross examine.
The burden of proof for administrative processes is the preponderance of evidence, which means essentially 50.1 percent. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt.... like a criminal trial.
I believe, for some reason, the Army had a plan in mind before this started.
I believe there was likely some wrong-doing - poor decisions, but not enough to make it criminal.
For my case, which was not like this... It was over a referred (bad) OER I gave to a LT who was involved in a sexual assault. He complained to everyone... EO, and eventually the DAIG. It ended up at the DAIG as a Whistleblower Reprisal Case, and when they finished their investigation (lame and directed (they had a desired result in mind) as it was), they confirmed the allegations - charges, and added conduct unbecoming and false official statement for good measure.
Why, because those (A) sound really bad, and they hard to disprove.
In my case I had to go through a promotion review board (should I stay on the promotion list; already selected for promotion), and command review review board (should I stay on the command list).
In the military - my view- especially with the IG, EO, or administrative proceedings, you must prove you are not guilty. They don't have to prove you are guilty, like a criminal trial. You also don't face your accusers, or get to cross examine.
The burden of proof for administrative processes is the preponderance of evidence, which means essentially 50.1 percent. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt.... like a criminal trial.
I believe, for some reason, the Army had a plan in mind before this started.
I believe there was likely some wrong-doing - poor decisions, but not enough to make it criminal.
(13)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
SSG Jeff Hane - No offense taken. Perhaps you are correct. But, I believe it it is all about perspective. I was Company Commander for 32 months, Battalion Commander for 25 months, and Brigade Commander for 37 months. I gave very few Article 15s; I could create a list from memory. I barred and chaptered plenty of Soldiers who failed to meet standards, and preferred charges on many who committed criminal offenses. I always considered matters of extenuation and mitigation, as well as the recommendations of the chain of command. I understand you don't know me personally, and are making a generalization based on your experiences.
I would bet, aside from the dudes who proffered the BS complaint(s) (which, were finally overturned by the DODIG - stating the DAIG erred, and their witnesses were less than credible) about me, because one failed to meet basic Army Standards (Army Values - an Officer...), you would be hard pressed to find many who had a bad thing to say about my approach to standards military justice.
I understand there are Commanders who enjoy the process and power; that was never me. Punishing a Soldier, even the worst ones, was nothing I enjoyed or looked forward to.
I would bet, aside from the dudes who proffered the BS complaint(s) (which, were finally overturned by the DODIG - stating the DAIG erred, and their witnesses were less than credible) about me, because one failed to meet basic Army Standards (Army Values - an Officer...), you would be hard pressed to find many who had a bad thing to say about my approach to standards military justice.
I understand there are Commanders who enjoy the process and power; that was never me. Punishing a Soldier, even the worst ones, was nothing I enjoyed or looked forward to.
(3)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
COL Charles Williams
When your wife said "what is your integrity worth to you...." I hope said "About the same as my love for you...if I didn't have my integrity, I don't think I would deserve you for very long and I doubt I would ever have deserved you."
Of course $15,000 is hard kick in the nads...at least for an EM...but sometimes it just is not about the money.
When your wife said "what is your integrity worth to you...." I hope said "About the same as my love for you...if I didn't have my integrity, I don't think I would deserve you for very long and I doubt I would ever have deserved you."
Of course $15,000 is hard kick in the nads...at least for an EM...but sometimes it just is not about the money.
(3)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
MSG Brad Sand - Good thought, but I have been married since I was PFC, to a girl I met and HS, and she works for the Army. She gets the Army, and she knows when you pull back all the veneer, all we really have is our integrity. This case, many cases, come down to integrity. I think I typed too fast above... what she said was "what is your reputation worth to you?" Similar, but something that precedes and follows you forever. Yes, 15k is a kick in the nuts for anyone... even a LTC.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Rene De La Rosa
Thanks for the explanation of a railroad job. I have found that if there are enough people badmouthing you. It has to be true???? The government apparently has never heard of collusion because their witnesses are never wrong.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google