• September 19, 2014

Killeen reader comments on gray areas surrounding Bergdahl case

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:30 am

To the Editor:

The recent letters to the editor on Sgt. Bergdahl might be right on the money.

However, there are a lot of gray areas about this subject, and only the United States Army has all the facts.

It would seem that Bergdahl was never picked up as a deserter.

The criteria for that classification is that after 30 days in Away Without Official Leave status, the individual is picked up as a deserter and dropped from the rolls.

The Army did not do that and carried him as a Prisoner of War.

The question is why?

In addition is the question as to why the Army made all of the other platoon members sign a nondisclosure statement about the incident.

It would seem like Bergdahl was in an undisciplined unit, as the platoon leader was relieved for arguing with a superior, either his company commander or battalion commander.

This would mean that there was no officer in charge at an isolated outpost.

According to most of the people in the platoon, Bergdahl was flaky, to say the least.

How was this soldier allowed to get off the base?

A better question would be why they didn’t ship him out after he stated that he might take off.

It should be noted that according to one of his platoon mates he had taken off on a few occasions, both in Afghanistan and in training.

The Army states that there were no soldiers lost searching for Sgt. Bergdahl; however, one of his platoon mates, who is now out of the Army, states that is not true, and that several missions were launched to search for him resulting in soldiers killed in action.

So who do we believe — the Army or Snuffy? You know I have always liked Snuffy.

John Sammis

Killeen

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

5 comments:

  • ImJustSayin posted at 7:14 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2014.

    ImJustSayin Posts: 67

    Something is awfully fishy about the entire Berghdal story. He looked mighty healthy to me when relaesed and I do tend to belive his fellow team mates rather than some
    made up stuff by the upper command. He deserted his post, knowingly and willingly walked away from his duty station and now matter how they slince and dice it, it is what it is. I am sure that the mental health card now will be pulled to show that he was unstable and blah blah blah .........
    My fear is that this man is a ticking time bomb for another disaster and will go off at angiven time once relased form Military Custody. Something is not right here ..... and I hope that someone has good enough sense to realize it

     
  • Bubba posted at 10:37 am on Sun, Jun 15, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 695

    We have no real evidence yet as to the characterization of his service. That will be determined by investigation.

     
  • Bubba posted at 10:03 am on Sun, Jun 15, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 695

    When the whereabouts or location of a Soldier is known to competent authority, that Soldier is no longer "AWOL". They move to another duty status. In this case, that would properly be "captured" (AR 600-8-6).

    Whether the Soldier was a POW remains to be determined.

    Following classified investigations, all involved sign non-disclosure statements as part of security processing (DOD Pamphlet 5200.1-PH-1). Pretty standard.

    The relief of a Lieutenant is not an indicator of an "undisciplined unit". That would be a wild assumption.

    The lack of an officer at the outpost means nothing. Noncommissioned officers lead troops; officers manage NCOs.

    That the Soldier was apparently a "flake" is not relevant or important.

    How the Soldier exfiltrated is a matter for investigation. Soldiers will say things to get themselves "shipped out". Leaders must decide how to react in each case; which would not include immediately redeploying troops who express displeasure with the accommodations.

    Unsubstantiated comments about other absences, not recorded in the official record or documented by legal action, are irrelevant.

    I will not question the veracity of a Soldier who was there on a mission and why he was on that mission unless there is overwhelming contradicting evidence.

     
  • DawgDave posted at 9:59 am on Sun, Jun 15, 2014.

    DawgDave Posts: 99

    This guy deserted - no question about it in my mind.
    He was AWOL before. He tried the Coast Guard before he enlisted in the Army - he lasted a whole 26 days before they discharged him.
    Remember, the Army will say whatever the Commander-in-Chief and SecDef tells them to say.

     
  • Eliza posted at 9:09 am on Sun, Jun 15, 2014.

    Eliza Posts: 760

    @ So who do we believe — the Army or Snuffy?


    I pick choice # 2

    My own inquiry would be --- The 'Sgt' looked in very good condition for someone who had (by his words) had spent his formative years as A "POW' locked in a cage type cell.
    He looked in better health, weight,a healthy color,etc
    then the original picture , being fed to the public, of himself in fatigues and helmet.