Another officer recommends no jail time for Bergdahl: do they know something we don't, or are there other motivations?

Sad to say but when he walks free into hiding, it will be the biggest slap in the face to the military ever!!!!

Not sure this is going to stand?? The Army has yet to make a final decision on Bergdahl's case..

It appears Bergdahl's lawyers have done their jobs and came up with the "defense" that his client didn't intend to remain away from his unit "permanently"... as Article 85 of the UCMJ requires to prove "desertion". The next higher authority the recommendation goes to now, will probably "rubber-stamp" the recommendation of the lower court; especially with the "pressure" coming from the "Highest Command".
What is very said, is at worst, Berdahl will walk away with the same discharge "classification" as those first offender's who tested "positive" on a drug test and at best full benefits to include "backpay", which would be an affront to those of us who received an honorable discharge.
In any case, unless this is overturned and recommended for a General Court Marshalls, the outcome and Bergdahl's non-punitive punishment, will set a "dangerous precedent" for any similar cases that follow....not to mention our military's "esprit de corps".

Shame how political this has been in a military court. No matter what we (soldiers) think, ultimately he walks free because it'll be too much civilian outrage

When POTUS gives 5 bad dudes in exchange for an American, it would be very embarrassing for him if his own country gave him a lengthy prison sentence or the death penalty, even when that is exactly what he deserves. It is a lot easier to convince junior officers looking for career advancement to vote not guilty than taking even more heat by giving him a presidential pardon. Either way, I see him outlined in chalk within a few years if he walks away free. Some veteran who lost good friends in the GWOT will not let him go unscathed.

I don't think he should. Anyone who says otherwise should go back and review the historical precedence set for Prisoners of War, detainees, and peace time governmental hostages. Even in cases of misconduct, most of them were forgiven unless there was a serious breach of the Code of Conduct. Bergdahl did not commit such a breach during his captivity and the leniency being shown to him for deserting is exactly inline with the vast majority of deserters since WWII.

I don't care. The information provided by his own unit members indicates that he deserted. Therefore he should face the penalties for doing so.

Whether he was "imprisoned" or not by the enemy is irrelevant. He should NOT get credit for time served under the enemy. His penalties HERE should be served HERE.

Whether you like it or not, Bergdahl's obvious mental issues were exasperated as a result of his captivity. That means it is a service related condition that can be verified. To deny him medical benefits, even in the light of his misconduct, would set a bad precedent given the fact he was a detainee (or captive? not sure if there is any legal difference in the definition). Also there is a historical precedence to not severely punish former wartime prisoners or detainees, even if their conduct has been less than stellar unless they committed a gross violation in the Code of Conduct as a detainee. Lastly, I am sure that if Bergdahl were to be punished severely (long term prison sentence, denial of benefits, etc.) there could be findings that would cast the military and his former chain of command in a very negative light. Given what was reported about his personality he clearly should not have been allowed to join, and it is highly likely that his chain of command, at least at the platoon and company level are guilty at some level for failing to identify/react to warning signs that are obvious now after the fact.

This in no way implies that Bergdahl is guilt free. It just indicates that there are a lot of gray areas concerning the whole ordeal.

I was going to post the same question if it was not on here already. If this is indeed true, I think the Army owes it to all Soldiers to be open and forthcoming about why he does not get any jail time or not receive a no punitive discharge. In my opinion, to do otherwise would be a breach of trust with the rest of the Army. I also think this stinks of high politics since to convict him in a court martial would be embarrassing to the President. I can understand the push for no jail time but to let him off with a slap on the wrist, the Army should be ashamed.