Maj. Mathew Golsteyn urged by panel to take honorable discharge
The Associated Press reports that Major Mathew Golsteyn was told by a panel of senior officers after a six-day hearing at Fort Bragg, NC that he should accept their offer of a honorable discharge for “conduct unbecoming an officer”.
Army Special Forces Command spokeswoman Maj. Allison Aguilar said Monday that if the decision is upheld by a review board Golsteyn would be discharged under honorable conditions allowing him to keep nearly all veteran’s benefits.
Golsteyn’s Colorado-based defense lawyer, Phillip Stackhouse, said the panel didn’t describe which conduct it found unbecoming an officer.
“Therefore, I can’t tell you what they found,” Stackhouse said in an email.
The story is that Golsteyn once took a lie-detector test with some CIA dudes during which he admitted that he had murdered a suspected Taliban bomb-maker. The Army has conducted an investigation and could find nothing beyond his admission that they could use at a trial, so they took an administrative action instead and removed from his records his Special Forces tab and his Silver Star medal which was being considered for an upgrade to the Distinguished Service Cross.
Iraq and Afghanistan Marine Corps veteran, Congressman Duncan Hunter has taken up Golsteyn’s cause and claims that he won’t stop until Golsteyn’s honors are restored and his Silver Star is upgraded to the DSC;
“Bottom line, the Army’s effort to discredit Matt began well before his Board was even organized, as evidenced by the Secretary’s actions to strip his valor awards in order to imply some sort of guilt. His valor awards are still owed to him,” said Hunter, a San Diego Republican and former Marine officer.
An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, declined comment.
Category: Big Army
I think the Secretary of the Army is being a petulant little bitch. MAJ Golsteyn said nice things about CPT Swenson and that pissed off John McHugh who can hold a grudge like Taylor Swift after she gets dumped. But unlike Swift who just writes songs, McHugh shreds reputations.
this smells like it has obozo all over it!!
Major, tell these fucking “sand crabs” (that’s a Navy term for REMF) to go fuck themselves.
I haven’t read the rest of the comments yet, but I already know yours is the best!!
OK…read them all and they’re all good and I’d say that FatCircles0311 is a close second to your spectacular but brief witticism. 🙂
Isn’t everyone in the navy a REMF? Can we start calling all sailors sand crabs?
I went to the Intrepid some years back so I don’t think that qualifies me to call anyone a “sand crab.” LOL
If you are implying that Seabees are REMF’s sir, I suggest you might just be moronic.
I was airborne infantry, every one is a REMF lol
Or a leg
Or a tabless sea-unt
You forget SEALS and Corpsman. My doc son saw more combat than most soldiers or Marines.
I don’t know what to think about this. I won’t go into too much detail, but an officer in my company did something that would have gotten an EM a ticket straight to Levanworth. Insteadbof facing a court martial, he was pushed out with an honorable discharge.
I don’t know the facts of the case. Maybe they didn’t have enough to go on and thought they could fix the problem by kicking him out, but I doubt that. There’s a different standard for officers and Joe and it’s bullshit.
So you admit you don’t know the facts of the case, but you know that it would end up with different punishments between EM and Orificer?
Get the facts, Jack. THEN make a decision. Otherwise, it’s just opinion. And opinions are like assholes.
I apologize for writing that second paragraph so vaguely, in that one I’m referring to this major. As far as the case of the officer I know, those facts I do know, and I know they had him dead to rights. Personally, I’m glad he didn’t get slammed for it, because he took care of his soldiers more than most, but I don’t like the fact that a Joe would have been crucified for doing the same thing.
Yeah, I tend to agree that necessary facts are missing. There is the legal, due process aspect, which requires the prosecutor to put up or shut up and go away. The prosecutor has evidence or doesn’t. The matter is complicated by the fact that if the major did “murder” someone and he admitted to it, retracting the admission puts him in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t pickle. Thus, it’s the old were you lying then or lying now question, which may be sufficient (proof of lie) that he satisfies the conduct unbecoming charge, even if it, as a question is inadmissible in witness examination. Whether this offer is a good one is for the major to decide. And that raises the other, nontechnical issue: did he do what he said he did? If so, and the killing was illegal, then only a fool wouldn’t take it.
Yeah.
Your right.
Joe can be busted for drugs and DUIs multiple times and they get an oak leaf on their respective ribbons and continue through the ranks.
Officers receive discharges.
As far as the facts, I agree. Obviously there is more to this than meets the eye.
There SHOULD be higher standards for higher ranks and positions of higher responsibility and trust. I’m not saying Joe should get oak leaf clusters after drug busts – I’m all in favor of a second chance if self-reported, zero tolerance otherwise – but for example, a PFC should get a chance to unfuck himself after a non-injury-causing DUI; an E7 or an officer should be booted on the spot.
(I’m not implying you believe differently, by the way – I have no idea – just saying that the double-standard is as it should be)
I agree and have the same viewpoint as you.
While I believe in a strike for lower ranks (if not extremely severe), not two, three, four, etc. The Army needs to move away from the mentality that if you are a 300 PT guy, then you are worth keeping after multiple offenses.
As far as no tolerance for higher ranks, agreed. I have seen some clowns skate through domestic issues, DUIs, conduct unbecoming and theft and hang around. They took a hit on their careers, mind you, but still hung around. Unsat in my opinion.
I saw that a lot at Bragg.
“If they can PT real good, everything else works out. So what if they’re dumb as a bag of hammers, they get a 290+ on the test every time!”
You know, this stinks like a dead carp.
Bomb maker must have been a big democratic donor.
That’s funny.
well if he’s a bomb maker, 90% chance he was trained in Saudi Arabia. We all know how much money the Clinton Global Imperialist (CGI) gets from them. Oh, wait, we really don’t because Hildabeast destroyed all the emails….
“… was told by a panel of senior officers after a six-day hearing at Fort Bragg, NC that he should accept their offer …”
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have always had a problem with taking legal advice from the other side. Is that the panel’s job, to advise the defendant on how they think he should proceed?
Well, it might be good advice, if they’re telling him that if he refuses their advice, it’s a DD and 10 to 20 at Leavenworth.
During a time of war it is not murder to kill a suspected bomb maker. Its called doing your job. I dont give a shit is the suspected bomb maker was on his knees begging for mercy.
Hello ? Tap, Tap, Tap, is this thing working? I thought we were supposed to kill people during a war. If you kill someone special aren’t you supposed to get an extra MRE or something?
Oh, I didn’t realize that doing it face to face was wrong. What an idiot I am. Thats what he did wrong, he looked the guy in the face and killed him.
He should have called Battalion, had them call Division, who calls someone in Camp Clusterfuck, that sends a drone to launch a missile that kills him and anyone else around him.
This guy looked him right in the face and shot his ass. That is so 60’s. Chesty Puller has a bunch of awards for shit like this. That crazy bastard was a serial killer.
You forgot that they have to get legal involved, before any drone strike can be approved.
JAG’s on the BN run right now – they’ll review the packet this afternoon.
Just be glad it is not Monday or Friday.
It’s exactly this kind of attitude that always gets us in trouble down the line. If we just go around MURDERING people (and there is a difference between murder and killing in combat) willy-nilly, then what is the difference between us and them? If we want to be known as the best nation in the world, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard and act accordingly. Hearts and minds, anyone? Furthermore, that SUSPECTED bomb maker could have provided valuable information if the Major had brought him for questioning instead.
All that aside, this case stinks to high heaven. He probably fucked the wrong General’s daughter and needs to be gotten rid of and this is the only thing they could pin on him.
-my 2 cents
No opinion of whether he should or should not take the offer because that truly is his and only his decision to make. But, my opinion about the stripping of his awards is clear.
An award, any award, should be issued for specific actions during a specific time frame. What the awardee does or does not do during other time frames is completely irrelevant. Don’t care if the awardee is guilty of any number of actions I find repulsive – the award is for having stepped up at the moment for which the award is/was considered.
He earned the awards. Period. They should be taken away ONLY if new information proves that the information used to determine issuing that award initially was seriously incorrect.
Looks to me like Goldsteyn’s response to a question was taken out of context and has no backup or evidence, other than his saying he did something. One word used instead of another, and he’s condemned for doing what was probably his job.
These people spend their time quibbling over stuff like this on my tax dollar?
Tell him to call me. I’ll help him with his bio.
Major Golsteyn needs to continue to fight to get his medals back, because he earned those — they had nothing to do with the DRT bomb-maker. But he also needs to take that honorable discharge and run with it like a stripe-assed ape. He’s too good for the modern Army, and if he tries to stay, they’ll bide their time and hang something on him that will stick. The whole world is out there in front of this young man, and he can realize his continuing potential somewhere else.
Maj Golsteyn could say, “I told a deliberate lie to test the CIA lie detector system, and it failed. It thought I was telling the truth.”
I’m with Bing West on this, Golsteyn is getting fucked hard for doing his job.
If killing the enemy is conduct unbecoming an officer we are in some serious fucking trouble in the Army today.
This is a classic example of why we can’t win in Afghanistan or anywhere else these days, the senior leadership has no idea what killing the enemy means and a serious lack of recognition of the realities of Afghanistan. Those people are not now and never have been our friends. They smile when you buy their shit and give them money and jobs, but when your back it turned and it’s expedient they’ll kill you for not being a fellow tribe mate.
Fuck Afghanistan, and fuck Iraq that’s what we should be doing instead of fucking the men we sent there to do a job and did that job with nothing but the utmost professionalism and drive.
^^^ WORD ^^^
“Those people are not now and never have been our friends. They smile when you buy their shit and give them money and jobs, but when your back it turned and it’s expedient they’ll kill you for not being a fellow tribe mate.”
Wait, were you referring to the Afghans, or to higher headquarters? I got confused there…
Well LMAO ! ! !
Welcome to how the Army Does Business! ! !
I’ve seen this Party play out too many time against the solder
I hope he comes out ahead ! ! ! !
Can we draft a retired LTC as Secretary of War? I am thinking of a writer who has some …. Interesting opinions on the prosecution of war.
Secretary of war? I want LTC West to be president!
Under the Military Rules of Evidence (M.R.E. 304(g)), if a guy does not plead guilty, you cannot convict based on a confession alone.
“An admission or a confession of the accused may be considered as evidence against the accused on the question of guilt or innocence only if independent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, has been introduced that corroborates the essential facts admitted to justify sufficiently an inference of their truth. Other uncorroborated confessions or admissions of the accused that would themselves require corroboration may not be used to supply this independent evidence.”
So, if they found “nothing beyond his admission”…they really did have nothing to try him on.
P.S. – In practice, courts don’t require very much corroboration to let an admission in…but if there was literally nothing else, then for trial purposes there was nothing at all.
In another article there was a reference to the transcript of the poly being admitted into evidence during the board hearing.
According to the article, the there was some disagreements with this as the CIA would not permit the polygraph tech to testify nor did it release the full video/audio of the polygraph session.
Again, according to the reporting on Monday, the President of the Board didn’t initially approve admission of only the transcript, but was overruled by the board’s legal advisor (who I have to assume is appointed by the same command as the boards appointing authority).
Doesn’t this represent some conflict of interest issues, as well as some other appealable grounds since arguably the entire poly wasn’t admitted?
Under AR 15-6, you’re not supposed to permit the results of a polygraph test at all. It’s one of the very few rules of evidence that applies at sep boards. There’s an exception if the defense consents, but the defense is only going to do that if the guy passes.
Some smart defendants have themselves privately polygraphed…if they pass, they put the results in; if not, they don’t have to tell anyone they ever did it.
You can admit the confession somebody made after failing a poly, but you are not supposed to admit the fact that he took a poly, refused to take a poly, or what the poly results were.
(I’ve done this at court-martial, putting in the confession but leaving out every piece of info to indicate that a polygraph test was taking place.)
So, depending on the details, they may have done exactly the right thing on that score.
I’ll let Alberich give the definitive answer, Luddite4Change. But the rules for evidence may be different for a separation board than a court-martial.
A separation board is an administrative action, while a court martial is a criminal trial. I believe the rules for evidence Alberich cited are for courts-martial. They may well be different for a board considering an administrative discharge.
I do know the standard of proof appears to be different (“preponderance of evidence” vice “beyond reasonable doubt”).
Well, I guess I should have waited another 2 min before commenting. (smile)
And everything you said was quite correct in any case. An important distinction…sep boards are not designed to punish, but to decide whether it’s best for the Army to keep the guy or not. In doing advocacy before them, I always tried to keep that distinction before both myself and the members.
btw, you are correct that the board’s legal advisor is normally appointed by the same command as the board itself. The common thing I’ve seen is to pick an administrative law attorney (often a civilian) who is not involved in giving day-to-day legal advice to the kind of officers who will sit on the board. That way at least you get some professional detachment.
(The defense attorneys, by contrast, are part of an entirely separate command. This wasn’t always the case.)
Also, it’s very common for a higher-level commander to ensure that the board members come from a different sub-unit than the person under investigation, precisely so they’ll walk in with a clean slate.
Thanks. I knew there were some rule of evidence distinctions between the CM and an Administrative hearing.
I suppose what I find disturbing is that only a portion of the poly (the transcript) was admitted into evidence. The examiner didn’t testify (where he could have been cross examined), nor was the video/audio made available to the board.
I recently had to endure my periodic poly, the video is part of the process, and it strikes me that this should be an all or nothing deal. Either the entire poly is admitted (transcript, operator, video) or none.
That’s contrary to both AR 15-6 and the Military Rules of Evidence.
There’s actually a good reason for it: polygraph results have never really passed muster as a way of detecting lies, yet board or panel members may see them that way.
What a polygraph really is good for is as an interrogation technique…to pressure somebody into admitting something he didn’t want to admit. Since he always gets a rights warning, the admission is voluntary, but the board doesn’t get to hear the “semi-scientific” evidence that might cause them to give it more weight than it deserves.
Thanks. Always find your comments and opinions on these legal issues insightful.
It’s how the Army rolls. I know the former Platoon Sergeant of the kid that killed himself in Afghanistan because of hazing. They couldn’t nail him for the hazing so they got him for disturbing the scene. Never mind the fact that he was trying to save the kids life.
I took a look at the article and the appropriate AR during lunch. Based on the comments here, it looks like there may be a bit of confusion regarding precisely what’s happening here. Best I can tell, MAJ Golsteyn has been considered by a board convened under AR 600-8-24, “Officer Transfers and Discharges”. The recommendations of such a board do not go to the individual; rather, they go to the GOSCA (General Officer Show Cause Authority) or other individual that initiated the process. As I’ll explain below, the board the article discusses appears to be what is called a “Board of Inquiry”. The stated purpose of such a board is to determine whether the retention of the named individual as an Army officer is in the Army’s best interests. It’s similar to a Chapter 13 elimination board for an enlisted troop with a pattern of misconduct who has the requisite number of years of service (6 or more, I believe) that such a board is required. If the recommendation is for separation due to misconduct, the board also makes a recommendation regarding the characterization of service. The details of the process are described in Chapter 4 of AR 600-8-24. The list of things for which an officer can be considered for separation by such a board is found in para 4-2 of the reg. It’s lengthy – the list is literally a page and a half long. “Conduct unbecoming” is one of those reasons, as are “acts of personal misconduct” and “intentional omission or misstatement of fact in official statements or records for the purpose of misrepresentation”. A formal AR 15-6 investigation is a prerequisite to the board. That investigation determines the facts to be considered by the board when it meets. The officer being considered for separation is allowed to present a case – including matters in rebuttal and extenuation, or other evidence of innocence. The Government must establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that retention of the officer is not in the Army’s best interests. If it cannot do so, the officer must be retained. The individual initiating… Read more »
The Army spokewoman said that if the board’s decision is upheld, he’ll be discharged “under honorable conditions.” That’s a general discharge, not an honorable.
(That’s also why it says he can keep “nearly all” rather than “all” veterans’ benefits. You still lose your GI bill. Also, officers may not get the benefit of “prior terms of service,” since we do not have contracts with expiration dates.)
The story appears to mix the terms up, a common enough thing in press accounts, since most reporters don’t know the distinction.
(The DA can still upgrade to honorable if they wish to, just as the commander can upgrade an enlisted man’s administrative discharge if he wishes to. But usually, if there’s a board, its recommendation is what really happens.)
Thanks; I’d missed that point. You’re almost certainly correct about his getting a General Under Honorable.
Assuming the article didn’t screw up that part too, of course. But the press would never do something like that. (smile)
You were correct, Alberich. This article from the Fayetteville Observer – which has reporters who understand the military reasonably well – explicitly says the board recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions).
http://www.fayobserver.com/military/army-board-tosses-most-serious-allegation-gives-golsteyn-general-discharge/article_8e48d09c-50d2-5f67-8a8f-19275a14cff4.html
Thanks for clearing that up. I was a little confused about the honorable discharge and the most of his benefits line. That didnt make any sense
So…he killed a guy who was trying to kill his guys. Isnt that what war is all about? He who kills last wins? I call this one a win.
I do believe the Major was a bit short sighted, as there was probably much info to be wrung out of this little fucker he killed, but I understand and support his motivations and actions.
I would be proud and happy to serve under such an officer.
The bigger picture here is implications for CIA recruiting.
As I understood it, disclosures during interviews was close hold to encourage truthfulness.
Good luck with that now.
If they were that distressed with possible LLW violations they should have investigated and then made a decision if he was an appropriate candidate.
This just smells like a political hit.
It’s fairly common knowledge that the CIA will eat their own, so what does that say about what they’ll do to somebody who’s still on the outside, whether they are a viable candidate for employment or not?