{"id":59526,"date":"2020-09-16T22:04:12","date_gmt":"2020-09-16T22:04:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/uncategorized\/2020\/09\/16\/combat-vet-fights-separation-board-in-case-that-traces-back-to-the-bin-laden-raid\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T02:35:13","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T02:35:13","slug":"combat-vet-fights-separation-board-in-case-that-traces-back-to-the-bin-laden-raid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/news\/your-military\/2020\/09\/16\/combat-vet-fights-separation-board-in-case-that-traces-back-to-the-bin-laden-raid\/","title":{"rendered":"Combat vet fights separation board in case that traces back to the Bin Laden raid"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A bizarre and frustrating tale of military bureaucracy that involves classified information from the 2011 Osama Bin Laden raid<\/a> comes to a head next month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Staff Sgt. Ricardo Branch, 38, an Iraq War veteran who is three years from retiring, will face a separation board over allegations that he fraudulently reenlisted after being punished for writing in a military email the name of the unit that flew commandos to kill the notorious al-Qaida<\/a> leader nearly a decade ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s just so absurd because the information was already released by the Army,\u201d Branch said during a telephone interview, pointing to an official Army release from 2011<\/a> that names the unit and links them to the raid three years before he did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Branch and his attorney, retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey Addicott, plan to go before the separation board in October at Branch\u2019s duty station of Fort Bliss, Texas<\/a>, to argue that the soldier should be allowed to finish his Army career. Branch rejoined in 2018 after being separated the year prior due to the security violation, which Addicott called a \u201cbogus charge” to begin with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey coded him to allow him to reenlist and then, years later, they say it should have been coded to not allow him to reenlist. That\u2019s what this chapter is about now,\u201d said Addicott, a former judge advocate who represents Branch pro bono through the Warrior Defense Project at St. Mary\u2019s University in San Antonio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The origins of Branch\u2019s Kafkaesque story have been reported before, laid out in detail by author Jack Murphy at ConnectingVets Radio<\/a> this spring and in two stories for the Washington Times<\/a> three years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case began in February 2014, when Branch was working in the public affairs shop for the Army\u2019s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment<\/a>. Some 160th SOAR troops had recently toured a Boeing plant in Mesa, Arizona, and Branch was asked by a major from that group to review a Boeing press release about the visit prior to its publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Branch recommended in an emailed reply to the major that Boeing remove any mentions of the 160th SOAR\u2019s participation in the raid on Bin Laden\u2019s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which had been included in Boeing\u2019s first draft of the article and attributed to the major.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the 160th SOAR\u2019s role in the operation was already well-known \u2014 in no small part because the Army stated it on their own website in 2011<\/a> \u2014 the Pentagon had technically not released the names of the units that participated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boeing agreed to the redaction, but problems for Branch were about to take hold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though the major who received Branch\u2019s email appeared to have no issues with the recommendation, other officers apparently felt differently. Branch forwarded the email to his boss, then-Maj. Daniel \u201cAllen\u201d Hill, for his situational awareness, he said. Hill then brought it to the unit\u2019s S-2. Hill did not respond to an attempt to contact him through a social media profile that matches his name and job.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A copy of the email that Staff Sgt. Ricardo Branch sent with the name of the unit that conducted the Bin Laden raid. (Courtesy of Jeffrey Addicott)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Branch was then accused of sending classified information through an unsecured channel, and was eventually handed a local Article 15 for the incident. He also received a negative NCO evaluation report documenting the security violation when he attempted to switch units due to the toxic work environment he claims the situation created.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe punishment seemed very draconian,\u201d Branch said. \u201cIn the original email, I received the information from a commander, I gave him my guidance and we ultimately safeguarded the information. However, that information was already out.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI suppose someone could have called me on a SIPR phone \u2026 and read the article off in its entirety,\u201d Branch added. \u201cBut I didn\u2019t have a SIPR account.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Branch ultimately separated from the service in 2017. Three months later, after working retail in Clarksville, Tennessee, Branch decided to visit a recruiter to see whether there was any chance he could get back into the Army to earn his retirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To his surprise, there was. The reenlistment code on Branch\u2019s discharge paperwork was a \u201c1,\u201d meaning he was fully qualified to rejoin, according to a redacted copy of his DD-214. Branch consulted with Addicott, who agreed there wouldn\u2019t be a problem reenlisting if that\u2019s what the code said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Staff Sgt. Ricardo Branch, 2nd Bn., 43rd ADA, and Benjamin Branch, his youngest son, share a moment together in Christmas 2019 before Branch would depart for a overseas tour in the Middle East.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Branch signed back up as an air defense artillery soldier, attended training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and reported to the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade at Fort Bliss in May 2018, where his Army career returned to normalcy. By this March, Branch was deployed to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, and was trying to reenlist one last time to complete his retirement goal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At that point, though, Branch\u2019s request was denied and he was accused of a fraudulent enlistment, according to Addicott.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think it was simply a computer function screening through it all and saw the discrepancy,” Addicott said. \u201cAt first, they said he could not reenlist and then they said he could, and now they said it\u2019s all [his] fault.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A commander\u2019s report shared with Army Times stated that the specific reason for the denial was that Branch was separated back in 2017 under the Qualitative Management Program, which can deny senior NCOs continued service based on qualitative grounds, according to Army Human Resources Command.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Branch also checked \u201cNO\u201d on an enlistment questionnaire that asked whether he had been previously rejected for reenlistment, the commander\u2019s report stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI said \u2018no\u2019 because if I was denied service, my DD-214 would have reflected it,\u201d Branch said. \u201cAnd the recruiter looked in the system, and I wasn\u2019t listed as a QMP, either.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Officials from Branch\u2019s current command did not comment on the circumstances of his case when reached for comment. They also declined to say whether Branch has received any negative evaluations since rejoining the Army.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOut of respect and privacy policies, I cannot comment specifically on SSG Branch\u2019s performance or any past administrative actions while assigned to [2nd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment],” said Maj. Albert Jernegan, the unit spokesman, adding, \u201cbut I can tell you that SSG Branch\u2019s commitment to selflessly serve is not overlooked.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n