SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > U.S. Army Special Operations > Special Forces

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 30 May 2015, 08:19
Marvin Blank Marvin Blank is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Paradise
Posts: 213
I think he probably did everything he is accused of, and like many of you, I think he was completely justified in doing it.

That being said, it was very illegal (although it shouldn't have been), and he was an idiot and a buddy fucker (to the rest of the team) for bringing it up in the interview. If you have skeletons in the closet, especially if they involve others, then certain jobs are probably not the ones you should apply to.

We all probably know guys who have decided to go apply to one Army SMU rather than the other due in large part to the full scope poly you have to take at one, vs. no poly at the other. (Or maybe we just have a lot of guilty consciences at 7th :)
__________________
"I'M A LEAD FARMER, MOTHERF%$KER!!!!!" - Tropic Thunder
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 29 June 2015, 18:19
bobmueller bobmueller is offline
Did...did I do that?
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Green Country, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,628
AP story:

BOI recommends honorable discharge, but apparently not restoring the tab or the Silver Star. Can the board recommend the honor be restored?

Lawyer says the Board did not specify which conduct they found unbecoming.

Quote:
An Army officer who was accused of tracking down and killing an unarmed bomb-making suspect in Afghanistan is being recommended for an honorable discharge even though a military panel that looked into the case determined his conduct was unbecoming an officer.

The military panel at Fort Bragg reached the finding late Sunday concerning Maj. Mathew Golsteyn. 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.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a112f...my-va-benefits
__________________
This message is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 30 June 2015, 04:21
Johan's Avatar
Johan Johan is offline
I am into Champagne
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Too low, too fast, etc.
Posts: 2,351
'Revoking' an decoration for combat valor due to completely unrelated conduct is truly amazing idiocy.

If that is the standard, I am certain there are many Officers at Pentagon who can have their 'rank' and pay, and retirement 'revoked' for failure in their duties after earlier competence.

And an 'unarmed' bomb-maker for a terrorist organization that is known to occasionally dabble with the 'suicide' bomb. That is truly a rare and mythical creature I think.

Was he wearing a sign that promised he was unarmed and not a threat?

Maybe Bowe Berghdahl is returned to Taliban (for 'illegal' killing of known but 'unarmed' bomb-making expert), the Special Forces Officer is allowed to continue to serve with no blemish on his record, and it is called 'even'.

Regards,
__________________
Though here at journey's end I lie
in darkness buried deep,
beyond all towers strong and high,
beyond all mountains steep,
above all shadows rides the Sun
and Stars for ever dwell:
I will not say the Day is done,
nor bid the Stars farewell.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 30 June 2015, 04:36
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is online now
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On a plane...
Posts: 6,962
The BOI recommended a General Discharge, not an Honorable. Golsteyn loses most military benefits, as well as his reputation and employability.
__________________
Life’s barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 30 June 2015, 05:04
magician's Avatar
magician magician is offline
Whatever Sucks the Most
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 9,579
What a nightmare he is living.
__________________
Ranger Classes 12, 13, & 14-81: 1st PLT, "Bad 'Muthers," Co A, 2d Ranger Battalion, 1980-84.
SFQC 4-84: ODA 151, Co B, 2d Battalion, 1SFGA, 1984-86. SF Association: M-10547.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 30 June 2015, 07:51
The Fat Guy's Avatar
The Fat Guy The Fat Guy is offline
The Sagacious One
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pushing string down the hall
Posts: 14,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavin View Post
The BOI recommended a General Discharge, not an Honorable. Golsteyn loses most military benefits, as well as his reputation and employability.
As I always say, we serve an ungrateful nation.

I had a Bn Cdr who thought he wanted to work for an OGA and after the full scope poly, he said that he felt so violated, he couldn't bring himself to work for them. And this is truly an honorable man.
__________________
No one will take better care of us, than us: Suicide Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 30 June 2015, 12:30
portn010 portn010 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 25
Honestly asking...

I know I'm a guest here, and as respectfully as possible -

If he did what he is alleged to have done, and it was in fact against the ROE/UCMJ... As long as he was aware of the rules, aware that his conduct did not fall within them and knowingly chose to engage in it anyways - why shouldn't he be punished?
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 30 June 2015, 12:30
WGH0922 WGH0922 is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,766
So this guy gets a General Discharge, no benny's, his Silver Star and/or DSC is revoked and is pretty much unemployable? What a clusterfuck. "On behalf of a grateful nation............."
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 30 June 2015, 12:52
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is online now
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On a plane...
Posts: 6,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by portn010 View Post
I know I'm a guest here, and as respectfully as possible -

If he did what he is alleged to have done, and it was in fact against the ROE/UCMJ... As long as he was aware of the rules, aware that his conduct did not fall within them and knowingly chose to engage in it anyways - why shouldn't he be punished?
Respectfully as possible...do you know how to fucking read? Read the thread, and see if you can answer your own question.
__________________
Life’s barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 30 June 2015, 13:04
portn010 portn010 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavin View Post
Respectfully as possible...do you know how to fucking read? Read the thread, and see if you can answer your own question.
From the thread, I gathered that mostly, the objection was that the allegations couldn't be proven and that the perception is he's getting railroaded for talking out of school to Congress. I understand that objection, and agree that if allegations can't be proven, no punishment should be imposed.

Some of the posts, however, seemed to imply that even if the facts were completely proven, people would still have a problem with punishment being imposed. That was why I underlined the "if" in my original question. Frustration with the rules and the political theater of it all aside,in the hypothetical scenario where an Officer simply decides not to follow rules and regulations he is well aware of - he ought to expect to be punished for that.

Sorry if I was unclear or offended you. I'll go back to reading now.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 30 June 2015, 14:40
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is online now
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On a plane...
Posts: 6,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by portn010 View Post
post
Go back to reading. This has nothing to do with Congress, other than the military blowing off a Congressman.

You didn't offend me. I don't offend easily. Your post shows you really don't understand the issues at play. Read more, post less.
__________________
Life’s barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 30 June 2015, 16:53
Hognose Hognose is offline
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NH and Palm Beach County
Posts: 307
Gavin and guys,

If he receives a General under Honorable Conditions he will be eligible for VA benefits.

http://www.benefits.va.gov/benefits/..._discharge.asp

It's still a screwing. In the opinion of an insider I know it is a self-inflicted screwing. I don't personally know Golsteyn.

It sounds to me like he killed a guy that needed killing, something our Army seems to have lost interest in since we roasted the Japanese in their bunkers on Iwo Jima.

He only screwed up when he ran his mouth about it.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 30 June 2015, 21:28
The Fat Guy's Avatar
The Fat Guy The Fat Guy is offline
The Sagacious One
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pushing string down the hall
Posts: 14,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by portn010 View Post
From the thread, I gathered that mostly, the objection was that the allegations couldn't be proven and that the perception is he's getting railroaded for talking out of school to Congress. I understand that objection, and agree that if allegations can't be proven, no punishment should be imposed.

Some of the posts, however, seemed to imply that even if the facts were completely proven, people would still have a problem with punishment being imposed. That was why I underlined the "if" in my original question. Frustration with the rules and the political theater of it all aside,in the hypothetical scenario where an Officer simply decides not to follow rules and regulations he is well aware of - he ought to expect to be punished for that.



Sorry if I was unclear or offended you. I'll go back to reading now.
Granted, the greater disservice to himself was the agreeing to the poly, but that is all moot now.

In your world you get hours, days and weeks to study and interpret laws that not only have pages of explanation, but also a plethora legal interpretation and precedence.

These young Captains and NCO's get very vague yet confusing commanders intent that equates to "Go over there and unfuck that region......" followed by a bajillion ridiculous rules on what you cannot do during the "Unfucking".

There is a huge difference between your mission, commanders intent and what your moral fiber says you should do. Sadly these decisions are often times in a split second, without the aid of volumes of precedence and interpretation.

Welcome to SOCNET.
__________________
No one will take better care of us, than us: Suicide Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 30 June 2015, 22:52
Johan's Avatar
Johan Johan is offline
I am into Champagne
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Too low, too fast, etc.
Posts: 2,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fat Guy View Post
Sadly these decisions are often times in a split second
Who are then judged by persons who have never need brain or nerve wiring to work faster than a mummified snail, and have never reeked so heavily of sweat and expended adrenaline as they walked away from 'another day at the work' than the unknowing fear an exposed battery acid situation due to what they smell.

Respectfully,
__________________
Though here at journey's end I lie
in darkness buried deep,
beyond all towers strong and high,
beyond all mountains steep,
above all shadows rides the Sun
and Stars for ever dwell:
I will not say the Day is done,
nor bid the Stars farewell.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 30 June 2015, 22:57
Johan's Avatar
Johan Johan is offline
I am into Champagne
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Too low, too fast, etc.
Posts: 2,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hognose View Post
something our Army seems to have lost interest in since we roasted the Japanese in their bunkers on Iwo Jima.
And this over a terrorist bomb-maker. Far from any Soldier defending from the bunker, in uniform, and associated protections due to professional code or honor.

Maybe the 'judges' need to serve 6 months with road convoys. Their attitude towards bomb-makers may benefit from a reality adjustment after that.

Regards,
__________________
Though here at journey's end I lie
in darkness buried deep,
beyond all towers strong and high,
beyond all mountains steep,
above all shadows rides the Sun
and Stars for ever dwell:
I will not say the Day is done,
nor bid the Stars farewell.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 1 July 2015, 02:19
CA SGT's Avatar
CA SGT CA SGT is offline
What could possibly go wrong?
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan View Post

Maybe the 'judges' need to serve 6 months with road convoys. Their attitude towards bomb-makers may benefit from a reality adjustment after that.

Regards,
Easy to make judgements from afar while sipping your lattes and sitting on dais. Much harder when your dodging IEDs and rounds snapping past your head.


Yeah, put them on 6 months of RCP duty and then let them judge. Apply the old adage of walk a mile in my shoes and then tell me your opinion again.
__________________
This job isn't dangerous enough....I need to start milking rattlesnakes and jerking off tarantulas on my lunch hour.
________________________________
Otatsiihtaissiiststakio piksi makamo ta psswia
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 1 July 2015, 22:22
Macka's Avatar
Macka Macka is online now
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SOCNET-Northeast
Posts: 2,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by portn010 View Post
I know I'm a guest here, and as respectfully as possible -

If he did what he is alleged to have done, and it was in fact against the ROE/UCMJ... As long as he was aware of the rules, aware that his conduct did not fall within them and knowingly chose to engage in it anyways - why shouldn't he be punished?
Your profile says you're an attorney in a county prosecutors office. So, take off your prosecutor hat, and put on your defense attorney hat.

Could you defend him? Would you defend him?

I'm still a little unclear on how they can take away the awards he earned. The way I read it he earned the Silver Star in an unrelated action.
__________________
Freedom costs a Buck 0-5
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 1 July 2015, 23:41
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 33,020
How anyone would give him a personal pass after he BrovoFoxtrotted his teammates is amazing (to ME)....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 2 July 2015, 08:29
sinjefe sinjefe is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 532
If you have "gray area" shit in your background, you don't try and get jobs that require poly's.
__________________
"Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag, puke, piece 'o shit, Private Pyle, or did you have to work at it!" - GySgt Hartman
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 2 July 2015, 10:21
SATCOM's Avatar
SATCOM SATCOM is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,108
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinjefe View Post
If you have "gray area" shit in your background, you don't try and get jobs that require poly's.
Depends on the job, or assignment. Have taken two for various gov-things. Me thinks that Goldsteyn's admission was most likely done innocently, maybe to impress the agency he was applying to, IDK. The most disconcerting thing to me is taking away a DESERVED decoration for combat actions because of something totally unrelated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:22.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018