海角大神

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has been charged with 鈥渄esertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty,鈥� as well as a lesser-known charge of 鈥渕isbehavior before the enemy.鈥�

Sergeant Bergdahl was held captive in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2014 after leaving his post. He was returned to the United States after the Obama administration agreed to a prisoner swap in which five Taliban members in the Guant谩namo Bay detention center were released.

The charges announced Wednesday mean that Sergeant Bergdahl will first receive an Article 32 hearing, which is like a civilian grand jury inquiry. It is designed to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed to court-martial.

At this point, Army officials may still not go through with the court-martial. They could also refer the charges to what鈥檚 known as a special court-martial, dismiss the charges, 鈥渙r take any other action deemed appropriate,鈥� according to a statement released Wednesday afternoon by US Army Forces Command, which has been running the investigation out of Fort Bragg, N.C.

The 鈥渄esertion with intent to shirk鈥� charge carries with it a maximum potential punishment of a dishonorable discharge, reduction to the rank of private first class, 鈥渢otal forfeiture of all pay and allowances,鈥� and a maximum jail time of five years.

The 鈥渕isbehavior before the enemy鈥� is the far more serious charge, carrying with it a penalty of 鈥減ossible confinement for life.鈥�

So what, precisely, does misbehavior before the enemy mean?

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it is the charge given to any US troop who, first and foremost, 鈥渂efore or in the presence of the enemy runs away.鈥�

But it has several facets. The misbehavior before the enemy charge can also be levied against anyone who 鈥渃auses false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces.鈥�

Some more old-fashioned-sounding actions that may incur a misbehavior before the enemy charge include instances when a service member 鈥渃asts away his arms or ammunition鈥� or 鈥渜uits his place of duty to plunder or pillage.鈥�

In this case, it must be proven that Bergdahl had 鈥渁 duty to defend a unit or place,鈥� that 鈥渢he accused committed misconduct鈥� and 鈥渢hereby endangered the unit or place,鈥� and that 鈥渢he act occurred before the enemy.鈥�

In order to prove the desertion charge, prosecutors will need to prove that Bergdahl 鈥渜uit his (or her) unit or place of duty鈥� and 鈥渄id so with the intent to avoid or shirk certain service,鈥� according to the Army press release.

What鈥檚 more, 鈥渢he duty to be performed was hazardous or important鈥� and 鈥渢he accused knew that he (or she) was required for duty or service.鈥�

The chances that Bergdahl will face the maximum penalty for these charges, even if he鈥檚 found guilty, are slim, analysts say.

鈥淲e have to remember that charges are allegations,鈥� says retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, former deputy judge advocate general of the US Air Force and now executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security at Duke Law School in Durham, N.C.

The Vietnam-era case of Robert Garwood, a private who was captured by Viet Cong forces 鈥� but was later found by the Marines of having acted as a collaborator with the enemy 鈥� might offer a historical analogy, Mr. Dunlap says.

He deserted during the war but eventually came back. The panel sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge but no confinement.

The Army has released none of its evidence, citing future court proceedings. 鈥淪o we just really don鈥檛 know what the circumstances are,鈥� Dunlap says.

What is clear is that the charge of desertion, for example, happens the minute a soldier decides to desert 鈥渨ith the intent to remain away permanently.鈥� In that instant, 鈥渋ntent is complete,鈥� Dunlap says. 鈥淓ven if you decide to come back, it would not excuse the offense itself.鈥�

Before the Article 32 hearing begins, Bergdahl鈥檚 lawyer, Eugene Fidell, may ask for an administrative discharge. The Army is under no obligation to grant it, but it would mean that although Bergdahl would receive an 鈥渙ther than honorable鈥� discharge 鈥� the lowest possible 鈥� he would not serve jail time.

鈥淕ene is one of the best in the business 鈥� he鈥檚 a pretty savvy guy,鈥� Dunlap says. Mr. Fidell may also decide to go through with the Article 32 investigatory process 鈥渂ecause he may want the opportunity to put on the record whatever Bergdahl underwent while he was held captive by the Taliban.鈥�

It might not excuse the offense or render him not guilty, Dunlap adds, but it could establish mitigation.