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?
41K
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
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
CPT Cannonie, not certain, but it seems that the appeal process sends it back up the chain to SecA (?)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
CPT (Join to see)
I guess I missed the evidence of integrity and professionalism being broken. Can you direct me to the evidence that this was done?
I guess I missed the evidence of integrity and professionalism being broken. Can you direct me to the evidence that this was done?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
This is one of those instances that 2+2=5. Something is very very wrong here, just from a gut feeling.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If they found no evidence he violated ROE's then why a General? Punishment takes many forms.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"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.
If this "allegedly admitted" is true, then he is getting off pretty good.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google