Board recommends that former Green Beret receive a General Discharge. Do you agree/disagree with the Board's recommendation? Why?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:03 -0400

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/

Board: Ex-Green Beret Mathew Golsteyn should receive general discharge

An Army board of inquiry booted Mathew Golsteyn from service but cleared him of the more serious allegation - sort of.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 30 at 2015 6:16 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:16:49 -0400

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.

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Jun 30 at 2015 7:04 AM

PVT Robert Gresham — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:04:55 -0400

The details of the shooting were, of course, left out, so it is difficult to agree or disagree. I must say though that a soldier who. "shot, buried, dug up and burned the body of the victim" does sound like a man trying to hide things. That is probably why the panel found him guilty of conduct unbecoming.

I do however STRONGLY disagree with his Silver Star being stripped. A person who was in combat and earned the award should be allowed to keep it. Taking it away is just sad, and I think it points to a great lack of understanding from the board members and his chain-of-command. It also sets a very dark precedent, so that everyone must be afraid of taking a shot, for fear of losing an award or worse, being court martialed.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 7:20 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:20:56 -0400

It would appear to me that there are MANY holes in this reporting. If there was no solid evidence that he committed these "alleged crimes," then why the general discharge for conduct unbecoming if there is no solid evidence of any wrong doing? Because the CIA says he said that in a video? Has the CIA shown that video as evidence? Because, clearly, the CIA is full of honest and trustworthy people that do the right thing all the time. If the video don't fit, then you must acquit.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 8:35 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:35:08 -0400

I disagree. No decision was made. I think the board is passing the buck to the review committee and I think there is a conflict in sending it back to John McHugh.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 8:51 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:51:14 -0400

I disagree. The board should make a clear decision, it sounds like they are passing the buck to the review committee. There also seems to be conflict here in returning this decision to John McHugh putting the responsibility of assigning punishment in his hands.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 9:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:59:30 -0400

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.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 30 at 2015 10:08 AM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:08:30 -0400

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.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jun 30 at 2015 10:14 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:14:08 -0400

Under the UCMJ, as in every single code of law in Western civilization, the burden of proof is on the accuser, NOT the accused. As the government has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Maj. Golsteyn committed any violation of the law, it is unjust that he be punished. Conduct unbecoming attaches to ANY violation of the UCMJ committed by a commissioned officer but that conduct unbecoming can exist without the violation to which it was attached seems ludicrous to me.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 10:48 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:48:31 -0400

As a member of ARSOF he knew better than to put his integrity and professionalism in jeopardy. Breaking any of the ARSOF attributes specially Integrity will lead to discharge. In my estimation I think he got a very friendly verdict.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 30 at 2015 11:17 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:17:29 -0400

Am I missing something? They state: "finding no clear evidence the soldier violated the rules of engagement" and for "killing an 'unarmed', suspected bomb-maker"? The bad thing about bomb makers is that one cannot tell if they are armed or not? Is that toaster a weapon or not? Is there something under his shirt?

So no evidence of a violation and killing someone suspected of killing and maiming are soldiers and civilians...and we are paid to do what?

Unless their is more that we are not being told, NO, I do not agree. I STRONGLY disagree.

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Jun 30 at 2015 4:32 PM

CW2 Ernest Krutzsch — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:32:27 -0400

Interesting, During the 2 World Wars, Civilians died, lots of them. They were an unfortunate consequence of war, now we believe we can fight a war without civilian casualties...I believe that the reason wars end is because the populace says enough is enough. We cannot fight wars with the expectation that civilians will not die. There are the Lt Calley's of the world, but at the time, do you really think of what is a legal order and what is an order? War is hell and sometimes good people die

Response by SGT Paul S. made Jun 30 at 2015 10:36 PM

SGT Paul S. — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:36:54 -0400

I think this Army owes him full benefits. But he should take the offer and move on with his life out of the military

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 10:53 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:53:33 -0400

I don't know what evidence they have proving that this man displayed "behavior unbecoming of an officer" but it seems like a witch hunt.
It makes me wonder who the morally elite person is that started this pursuit of injustice and/or what other officers ass's are on the line to initiate the under the bus throwing.
As far as getting the honorable discharge goes, he got a slap on the wrist in his records which puts almost everyone at risk to be QMP'd. This scenario seems very much like a QMP scenario. That being said, those that get QMP'd get an honorable discharge. By that logic, he should get an honorable discharge at least.
I would like to know more but at face value I would like to see him exonerated and receive his award and tab back.
I'm a little bias though since I am a fellow GB, combat vet, and imperfect as a person.

Response by SFC Rollie Hubbard made Jun 30 at 2015 11:56 PM

SFC Rollie Hubbard — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:56:52 -0400

If I read this right there were no one to confirm the CIA's story no body and no grave with ashes were found looks like they railroaded the Major, I think he should fight this, plus what was the charge of unbecoming an officer? This all sounds phoney as hell to me. That is my .2.

Response by SSG Blake Miles made Jul 1 at 2015 3:23 PM

SSG Blake Miles — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:23:53 -0400

Probably has a lot to do with the reasons Bin Laden wanted Jim Gant killed.... UW performed the way intended is effective enough to eliminate need for massive infrastructure contracts. Never underestimate what billions in contracts can do.

Response by CPT Arch Nissel made Jul 2 at 2015 2:25 PM

CPT Arch Nissel — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 14:25:34 -0400

This is why we are losing too many engagements, our alleged leaders do not have the stomach for winning in combat, even though they send us to it.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Sep 23 at 2015 12:50 PM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:38 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad Gunny, Based on the information in the story, I do not agree. The world with one less bomb maker, seems like a better place.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Oct 20 at 2015 11:38 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:38:02 -0400

"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."

If this "allegedly admitted" is true, then he is getting off pretty good.

Response by SSG Julian Nicholson made Jan 19 at 2019 6:41 PM

SSG Julian Nicholson — Sat, 19 Jan 2019 18:41:58 -0500

Such a recommendation makes the board look petty. It appears as if they made this recommendation out of spite rather than justice. I feel sorry for anyone who finds themselves under any of these board members leadership.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2019 5:43 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:43:48 -0400

If they found no evidence he violated ROE's then why a General? Punishment takes many forms.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Aug 1 at 2020 2:52 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sat, 01 Aug 2020 02:52:46 -0400

This is one of those instances that 2+2=5. Something is very very wrong here, just from a gut feeling.