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?
40.9K
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)
7
7
0
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.
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.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
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.
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.
(7)
(0)
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.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
1LT Barr, agree for the most part, however, even with the polygraph not admitted, he seems to have uttered statements acknowledging/admitting a crime which may have been part of evidence in another form under UCMJ; we'd have to see the Record of Trial to know. Meanwhile, perceptions are reality; whatever perception the board had is a likely factor. Stacking charges as Col Williams relates also influences perceptions.
(2)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
I don't discount the possibilities you bring up, I'm willing to bet that's part of it. That said, couldn't they have charged him with giving a false official statement or something related to that? This just seems fishy to me, especially the Conduct Unbecoming without even throwing the General Article at him.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google