Army investigators say Bowe Bergdahl did NOT help the Taliban but mystery remains as to how he ended up being held captive by insurgents
- Two-star general was appointed last week to investigate the matter
- Anything he says in debriefing could be still be used against him in legal proceedings
- Officials say Bergdahl has been cooperative but has not been read his legal rights or asked for a lawyer
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who was freed from captivity has been provisionally cleared of helping the enemy while he was held prisoner by the Taliban.
'We have no reason to believe that he engaged in any misconduct' during his five years in captivity, a U.S. Army official told the Wall Street Journal.
An investigation has been underway into whether Bergdahl deserted his post in June 2009 while he was stationed in a remote area of Afghanistan.
A classified investigation by the Army in 2009 found that the sergeant had left his post voluntarily.
The U.S. Army says Bergdahl has been released from inpatient care at Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas and the former prisoner of war in Afghanistan is now receiving outpatient care at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio
A probe was launched after Bergdahl was accused by members of his unit of desertion.
Bergdahl, 28, disappeared from his post
in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan on June 30, 2009.
Some former members of his unit have said that he left of his own accord. Bergdahl has not commented publicly on the circumstances of his disappearance.
He was turned over to a U.S. military team by members of the Taliban on May 31, in exchange for the release of five Taliban leaders being held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center.
His former platoon mates have claimed that several soldiers were killed or injured during search missions for Bergdahl.
Senior U.S. Army officials said that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has not yet been interviewed by the two-star general appointed last week to investigate the matter.
They said he has not been read his legal rights and has not asked for a lawyer.
Officials have said the military team helping him recover from his imprisonment has told him that he is not immune from any subsequent charges, including anything linked to information he gives them now.
The Army officials said that the investigation will examine whether Bergdahl went AWOL or if he deserted his post
One senior Army official said that any admission Bergdahl may blurt out during the debriefings could be used against him.
So far, Bergdahl has been cooperative and it appears he has not made any admissions that could be used against him.
The tenuous legal line is that the reintegration team is focusing on the five years he spent in captivity, not how he got there.
And Army officials said there is no suggestion that Bergdahl was guilty of any misconduct while he was held captive.
Bergdahl was initially treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, but is now receiving outpatient care at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas.
Army officials would not say Wednesday whether he has the ability to move freely on and off the base or if his movements are being constrained.
He is now in the final phase of his 'reintegration' at the center, where a staff psychologist will decide when he’s ready for release.
The process includes helping Bergdahl deal with the effects of five years in captivity, and could be completed within two weeks.
The official said Bergdahl has been cooperative and it appears he has not made any admissions that could be used against him
He has not admitted any wrongdoing, asked for a lawyer or talked with his parents in the three weeks since his release, according to reports.
He is also yet be questioned by the Army officials assigned to the investigation.
Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, deputy commanding general of 1st Corps at Joint Base Lewis McChord in Washington state, is conducting the investigation with a deadline of mid-August.
His recommendations would be forwarded to the director of the Army staff, who could approve or alter them, and then forward them to Bergdahl's commander for any appropriate action.
The questions surrounding Bergdahl's disappearance also complicate his back pay. His pay was initially going into his bank account after he disappeared, but at a certain point the account became frozen due to inactivity.
If it is determined he went AWOL or deserted, he could be forced to repay money.
The road to rehabilitation: After his recovery process is completed, the Army will interview Bergdahl and decide if he should face disciplinary proceedings.
According to a U.S. official, Bergdahl accumulated more than $300,000 in back pay since he disappeared in June 2009, but it's not clear how much of that has been frozen.
If it is determined that he did not go AWOL or desert his post, he also could receive roughly another $300,000 or more because he was a prisoner of war.
After his recovery process is completed, the Army will interview Bergdahl and decide if he should face disciplinary proceedings.
If Bergdahl is charged with desertion, he could face court-martial, prison time and possibly even the death penalty.
-
Apple CEO Tim Cook accidentally outed as gay live on-air
-
GRAPHIC: Mother violently beaten as toddler fends off...
-
Pilot lands fighter jet on a STOOL after front landing gear...
-
Man confronts cops over shooting of his beloved dog
-
Sprightly goats play king of the mountain on horse's back
-
Shia LaBeouf leaves police station after theater arrest
-
AUDIO: 'Race-baiting' ads drove Democrats to vote in GOP...
-
Coco the Golden Retriever loves eating corn on the cob
-
Watch baby's reaction when he tastes lemon, three times
-
Fellow theater goers react to Shia LaBeouf's conduct
-
Beach-goer hits flying drone dead-on with football
-
Restoration of Isabella de Medici at Carnegie Museum of Art
-
EXCLUSIVE: 'Nightmare nanny' was homeless for nine years and...
-
Father who left toddler to die in sweltering SUV uses his...
-
'Oh, dear, was that an error?': Awkward moment CNBC co-host...
-
From Queens to Beijing: The most jaw-dropping abandoned...
-
Wimbledon's female stars hit back at 'creepy' knicker...
-
Parents pull children out of school after Canadian teacher...
-
Ice T's teenage grandson arrested for killing his roommate...
-
Ripped out... the gleaming £38,000 kitchen that the Duchess...
-
'The worst race-baiting ads I've ever seen': Radio ads in...
-
EXCLUSIVE: Now he really will be a MODEL prisoner! Jeremy...
-
How the Queen's worn the same shoes for 50 years... and has...
-
Female prison worker arrested after being accused of having...
Comments (16)
Share what you think
The comments below have been moderated in advance.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) ART. 85. DESERTION ¿ UCMJ Menu ¿ Punitive Articles of the UCMJ Related Resources ¿ Court Martials ¿ Nonjudicial Punishment (Art 15) ¿ Administrative Discharges ¿ Military Lawyers ¿ Crime & Punishment ¿ Current Events: Law ¿ Government ¿ US Government Info (a) Any member of the armed forces who-- (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently; (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or (3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
HJ, Las Vegas;.. "does anyone think the Obama Administration is capable of an honest answer".. What's the point in them have any investigation then?.... And what's the point in reporting the findings to you Republicans? You're just going to believe any nut bag conspiracy anyway. I'll answer that. The investigation is not done with you in mind in the least, and they are reporting the findings to people that have some kind of sense and don't go off chasing mad theories with no basis in reality... (that would be us liberals). They couldn't give two cents what you right wingers think of it, since it was totally predictable what you would say before any investigation even began. For the rest of you who are not so described, this is just an insignificant addition to the justification of getting a POW released before our troops are completely withdrawn. It's tiny because if the investigation went the completely other way... getting him released was still the only proper thing to do.
HJ, Las Vegas;.... "does anyone think the Obama Administration is capable of an honest answer"..... What's the point in them have any investigation then?.... And what's the point in reporting the findings to you Republicans? You're just going to believe any nut bag conspiracy anyway. I'll answer that. The investigation is not done with you in mind in the least, and they are reporting the findings to people that have some kind of sense and don't go off chasing mad theories with no basis in reality... (that would be us liberals). They couldn't give two cents what you right wingers think of it, since it was totally predictable what you would say before any investigation even began. For the rest of you who are not idiots, this is just a tiny insignificant addition to the justification of getting a POW released before our troops are completely withdrawn. It's tiny because if the investigation went the completely other way... getting him released was still the only proper thing to do.
Article 85 Uniform Code of Military Justice is very specific: Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct. Note: For specific details concerning this offense, including elements of proof, maximum punishments, and detailed explanation, see Punitive Articles of the UCMJ.
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
George, London-England, United Kingdom, 10 hours ago
He held the rank of Private when he "went missing". Is it standard practice to continue getting promotions while held as a "Prisoner of War"? Isn't a promotion to NCO dependent on "Proficiency & Conduct" or battlefield merit? How did he deserve to be automatically promoted up the ranks to Sergeant during this time?