US military obtains new video of American soldier held in captivity

[Dos Equis]

I saw his colleagues from his unit on Fox.  There is no doubt in my mind they were scapegoating him.  They essentially drove him away.

I saw his fellow Soldiers on Fox too and didn't have that impression at all.  It's not like he was being hazed.  He simply walked away.  You don't have that option as a Soldier, especially in a combat zone.

[Dos Equis]

Bergdahl could get $350G tax-free, if cleared by Army
By Dominic Di-Natale
Published July 14, 2014
FoxNews.com

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could have a tax-free $350,000 dropped into his bank account if the current investigation into his disappearance from his base in Afghanistan was not desertion, and if he is deemed to have been a prisoner of war for the five years he was held by Islamic militants, Fox News has learned.

The 28-year-old soldier, for whom the U.S. traded five senior Taliban operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, was set to return to active duty Monday after spending six weeks in medical rehab at Fort Sam Houston, in San Antonio.

“Essentially he’ll be working a desk job,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren told reporters at the Pentagon Monday.

"They’re pulling his clearance so I’m not sure what he’s supposed to do.”
- Army official speaking under condition of anonymity
Bergdahl is due approximately $200,000 in back pay for the time he was in Taliban hands. He would be eligible for another $150,000 if an ongoing probe determines he was a prisoner of war. Both sums could be tax free for Bergdahl, who was promoted from private first class to sergeant during the time he was held.

Bergdahl was moved to the U.S. Army North command on Saturday, shifting from the U.S. Army South command, which had overseen his arrival in the U.S. and reintegration. Under Army North, he will return to work and live in standard military barracks. He is being assigned to the protocol office, which assists soldiers in military procedures and etiquette.

“That’s the worst place to put him. They’re pulling his clearance so I’m not sure what he’s supposed to do,” said one Army official, speaking on the condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to publicly discuss the sergeant’s case.

Bergdahl is now able to leave the base and is escorted by his care team when he does. He recently visited a shopping mall to buy items for his computer and the group was seen at a local restaurant, say people with knowledge of his movements.

Bergdahl still has not spoken to his parents, although he has sent two letters to them at their home in Idaho. Robert and Jani Bergdahl have yet to visit him in Texas, and there are reports of a rift in the family.

A close long-time friend, identified as Kim Harrison, is currently staying in San Antonio and the two meet frequently, say officials.

Under tax rules for military pay, enlisted personnel can exclude active-duty pay earned while serving in a combat zone. And, according to the Department of Defense’s financial management regulation, payments to former captives generally are not taxable if the captive status resulted from the deprivation of personal rights, such as terrorist activity.

Bergdahl’s status as a POW can only be determined by the Secretary of the Army after the completion of the investigation into why he walked off his post in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009. The Pentagon said Monday that the investigation is still continuin, but gave no further details.

According to military officials familiar with his rehabilitation program, Bergdahl now has a lawyer to represent him.

“He appears unconcerned about the Army’s investigation,” said one official. “The investigation has to get moving, as he’s out of the Army soon. He lawyered up so we had to scale back the de-briefing.”

Bergdahl has yet to be questioned about why he abandoned his post. It is unclear when his military service is due to end.

Several soldiers who served with Bergdahl have come forward to say they believe he intentionally deserted his post, and put his fellow soldiers at risk when they went to look for him.

“I think it’s very clear he deserted his post,” former Army Sgt. Evan Buetow told FoxNews.com last week. “He thought about what he was doing, he mailed some things home, he walked away and we have witnesses who saw him walking away. And if you’re walking away in one of the worst, most dangerous areas of Afghanistan without your weapon and gear, I don’t believe you’re planning on coming back.”

Former Army Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl’s unit, also told FoxNews.com Bergdahl deserted his unit. He believes the Idaho native should be charged with desertion, not showered with back pay.

“The most important factor isn’t necessarily why he did it or what made him do it,” Vierkant said. “The most important factor is that he did do it — for whatever reason. That’s enough in my mind to do a court-martial, bring him up under several different charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/14/bergdahl-could-get-350g-tax-free-if-cleared-by-army/

[headhuntersix]

As of noon that fucker is no longer my problem.

[Soul Crusher]

As of noon that fucker is no longer my problem.

Was listening to a SOFREP podcast and what they were saying about him was like . . . eeewwweeeee . . . . . nasty. 

[Dos Equis]

Bergdahl's attorney also fought for Army captain in espionage case
Jul. 16, 2014
By Joe Gould

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has retained a high-profile attorney — the same lawyer who defended Capt. James Yee, a Muslim Army chaplain cleared in an espionage probe a decade ago.

Bergdahl’s lawyer is Eugene Fidell, a Yale Law School scholar, prominent military legal expert and a co-founder and former president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

The Army is investigating the circumstances that led to Bergdahl’s disappearance and capture, probing allegations that Bergdahl walked off his remote post in Afghanistan without authorization before militants seized him. After five years in captivity, Bergdahl was freed May 31 as part of a controversial exchange with the Taliban for five militants who were in detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In an interview with Army Times, Fidell said Wednesday he was “gratified” at having been approached to represent Bergdahl and that he has since met with Bergdahl last week at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Bergdahl has concluded an Army-led reintegration process and this week was assigned a desk job at the headquarters for U.S. Army North.

“This is a soldier who has been through an indescribable ordeal, and we can never lose sight of that,” Fidell said.

Fidell said Bergdahl was, “grateful to the president for having saved his life.” Otherwise, Fidell did not offer his own conclusions about Bergdahl’s condition or state of mind. Nor would Fidell comment on whether he or Bergdahl were in communication with Bergdahl’s family.

Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl, who is leading the investigation into the circumstances of Bergdahl’s disappearance, has yet to question Bergdahl.

Fidell, who is lead counsel assisted by an attorney with the Army Trial Defense Service, said he plans to be with Bergdahl when he is interviewed.

Republican lawmakers have criticized the trade and suggested that Bergdahl intentionally left his post to meet up with the Taliban, and some of his fellow soldiers have said their lives were put at risk in the search for him. However, Fidell cautioned against generalizing about how Bergdahl is viewed by his peers — and he discussed the range of opinions in the public at large.

“I am concerned about vilification, I think some of it has already happened,” Fidell said of Bergdahl’s case. “There are certainly people who wish him ill. We all know that.”

On the other hand, Fidell said he has received “A number of quite touching emails from total strangers since my involvement became known, and I’ve shared those with my client.”

Other than the intense public interest, Fidell said he did not see any similarities between Bergdahl’s case and Yee’s.

Yee, a West Point graduate, was accused in 2003 of being part of a spy ring at the U.S. prison for suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.

After spending 76 days in solitary confinement, Yee eventually was exonerated, resigned from the Army and received an honorable discharge.

In an interview with Military Times weeks before he became Bergdahl’s attorney, Fidell said there is an “unwritten policy” to avoid court-martialing service members who have spent time as POWs.

“I don’t think they’ll do that in this case,” Fidell said in the June 2 interview. “Unless something comes to light that suggests that he was a turncoat or joined the other side or assisted the other side in some way. … There is no public indication that any of those things are true in his case.”

Fidell has also taught at Harvard Law School and the American University Washington College of Law. From 1969 to 1972, he served as a judge advocate in the Coast Guard.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140716/NEWS/307160051/Bergdahl-s-attorney-also-fought-Army-captain-espionage-case?sf28613623=1

[Dos Equis]

Bergdahl Platoon Mate: Desertion Is 'Unforgivable'
Thursday, 17 Jul 2014
By Melissa Clyne

A member of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's former platoon in Afghanistan says the soldier's decision to walk away from his post in Afghanistan is "unforgivable" and something for which he should be held accountable.

According to Matt Vierkant, Bergdahl presented a totally different front to his brothers in arms than he did to his parents.

"His letters and emails home talking badly about the military and America contradicts what he was telling us while we were in Afghanistan,"Vierkant told host John Bachman on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV Thursday.

"He wanted to do more missions to find the Taliban, to seek them out, and to essentially kill them and do an infantry job, what we came there to do. But at the same time that he's talking disrespectfully about the military and America back to his parents, and then telling lies to whoever about running over children or whatever. There's so many aspects of this story, there's so many holes, there's so many contradictions. It doesn't even make sense."

News reports that Bergdahl was a victim are "ridiculous,"according to Vierkant.

"I understand that he went through five years of captivity, but that wasn't my fault,"he said.

"That was his own fault. He put himself in that position.

After five years in captivity beginning in June 2009, President Obama approved a prisoner swap involving Bergdahl. On May 31, Bergdahl was handed over to the U.S. military in exchange for five senior Taliban members held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Bergdahl is being represented by Eugene Fidell, a civilian lawyer specializing in military law.

Vierkant took issue with Bergdahl being returned to duty -- assigned to a desk job -- with no restrictions on his freedom.

"He's not being treated like any other person being investigated for desertion,"he said.

"(He's) almost being treated like a hero instead of being treated like he's actually under investigation.”

Vierkant hopes Bergdahl receives a fair trial but wants Americans to understand that desertion "is a very, very serious charge"that he and other soldiers take "seriously and personally.”

"If I was in Bergdahl's position and somebody was accusing me, or allegations of desertion and everything else were coming up against me, I'd be the first one to speak up and defend myself,"he said. "They won't even talk about his mindset or his health or even let him speak a word. They all tip-toe around it and I just found it really interesting.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/platoon-mate-held-accountable/2014/07/17/id/583315#ixzz37m7lN7rs

[Dos Equis]

House GOP and Some Democrats Preparing to Slam Obama for Bergdahl Swap
The House Armed Services Committee will mark up a resolution Tuesday condemning the president for negotiating with terrorists.
July 24, 2014

House Republicans are set to open another front next week in their efforts to publicly repudiate President Obama—this time for his decision in May to exchange five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Only this time it won't be a purely partisan assault. Some Democrats have signed on with Republicans to condemn Obama for approving the prisoner swap.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon says his panel will mark up a bipartisan resolution on Tuesday that accuses Obama of disregarding "America's long-standing policy against negotiating with terrorists."


The resolution will further declare that the transfer was in violation of a section of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, which requires the secretary of Defense to notify Congress at least 30 days before the transfer of a Guantanamo detainee.

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is the sponsor, along with GOP Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin and Democratic Reps. Nick Rahall of West Virginia and John Barrow of Georgia.

"When the president takes his oath of office, he is duty bound to follow the laws set by the American people," McKeon said in a statement. "Here, his office broke a law that was originally adopted by his own party in the Senate, passed by a large bipartisan majority in Congress and signed by the president himself."

McKeon added: "Just as the president must do his duty, so must Congress. Congressman Rigell's legislation sends the clear message that following the law isn't optional."

The administration says that concerns about Bergdahl's deteriorating health played a role in its thinking.

Bergdahl, 28, went missing on June 30, 2009, in Afghanistan's Paktika Province, where his battalion was deployed. He had spent five years in captivity until his release on May 31 in exchange for five Taliban prisoners transferred from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In his own statement Thursday, Rigell said his resolution will be an official, bipartisan repudiation of Obama's actions.

Although the action was not announced until Thursday, it has actually been in the planning stages since June. In fact, House Republican leadership aides back then confirmed that closed-door strategy sessions by top Republicans were already underway on how to best seize on the Bergdahl swap, seen as angering members of both parties. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul was even saying in June that the issue would have a long shelf life politically.

"Not only is it a winner because it was horrible foreign policy," McCaul said. There are also a lot of elements for lawmakers to cover in the Bergdahl controversy, he said.

McCaul said those include the risks of negotiating with terrorists, why Congress wasn't kept in the loop, and whether this swap signals plans by the Obama administration to release all prisoners and close the Guantanamo prison over congressional objections.

"You know me, I'm pretty much more of a national security kind of guy and I don't really engage in a lot of partisan politics," McCaul said. But still, he said, "I think this probably has more legs than any other story I've seen."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/house-gop-and-some-democrats-preparing-to-slam-obama-for-bergdahl-swap-20140724

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

House GOP and Some Democrats Preparing to Slam Obama for Bergdahl Swap
The House Armed Services Committee will mark up a resolution Tuesday condemning the president for negotiating with terrorists.
July 24, 2014

House Republicans are set to open another front next week in their efforts to publicly repudiate President Obama—this time for his decision in May to exchange five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Only this time it won't be a purely partisan assault. Some Democrats have signed on with Republicans to condemn Obama for approving the prisoner swap.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon says his panel will mark up a bipartisan resolution on Tuesday that accuses Obama of disregarding "America's long-standing policy against negotiating with terrorists."


The resolution will further declare that the transfer was in violation of a section of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, which requires the secretary of Defense to notify Congress at least 30 days before the transfer of a Guantanamo detainee.

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is the sponsor, along with GOP Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin and Democratic Reps. Nick Rahall of West Virginia and John Barrow of Georgia.

"When the president takes his oath of office, he is duty bound to follow the laws set by the American people," McKeon said in a statement. "Here, his office broke a law that was originally adopted by his own party in the Senate, passed by a large bipartisan majority in Congress and signed by the president himself."

McKeon added: "Just as the president must do his duty, so must Congress. Congressman Rigell's legislation sends the clear message that following the law isn't optional."

The administration says that concerns about Bergdahl's deteriorating health played a role in its thinking.

Bergdahl, 28, went missing on June 30, 2009, in Afghanistan's Paktika Province, where his battalion was deployed. He had spent five years in captivity until his release on May 31 in exchange for five Taliban prisoners transferred from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In his own statement Thursday, Rigell said his resolution will be an official, bipartisan repudiation of Obama's actions.

Although the action was not announced until Thursday, it has actually been in the planning stages since June. In fact, House Republican leadership aides back then confirmed that closed-door strategy sessions by top Republicans were already underway on how to best seize on the Bergdahl swap, seen as angering members of both parties. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul was even saying in June that the issue would have a long shelf life politically.

"Not only is it a winner because it was horrible foreign policy," McCaul said. There are also a lot of elements for lawmakers to cover in the Bergdahl controversy, he said.

McCaul said those include the risks of negotiating with terrorists, why Congress wasn't kept in the loop, and whether this swap signals plans by the Obama administration to release all prisoners and close the Guantanamo prison over congressional objections.

"You know me, I'm pretty much more of a national security kind of guy and I don't really engage in a lot of partisan politics," McCaul said. But still, he said, "I think this probably has more legs than any other story I've seen."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/house-gop-and-some-democrats-preparing-to-slam-obama-for-bergdahl-swap-20140724

I think they should stay away from it until the investigation is over.  Picking on a guy who has been a POW who was tortured, locked in a cage and for propaganda for the Taliban for over 5 years will not sit well with military personnel. 

Not only that...they are not going to charge him with anything. 

[Kazan]

I think they should stay away from it until the investigation is over.  Picking on a guy who has been a POW who was tortured, locked in a cage and for propaganda for the Taliban for over 5 years will not sit well with military personnel. 

Not only that...they are not going to charge him with anything. 

I would really like to know where exactly you get this information?

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

I would really like to know where exactly you get this information?

Fox News and CNN....there's an unwritten rule that POW's are generally not charged with any misconduct due to morale issues

[Kazan]

Fox News and CNN....there's an unwritten rule that POW's are generally not charged with any misconduct due to morale issues

Good thing he is a deserter then.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Good thing he is a deserter then.

Based on the two previous incidents where he left base to meditate and clear his head, I think he did the same thing as he didn't leave with any provisions whatsoever although I would say that it was a bad idea to which I'm sure he's more than learned his lesson.  There's a claim out there that he left a note saying that he was going to start a new life but no note has ever surfaced.

We will all have to wait and see but he's not going to be charged with anything...the 350k tax free money on the other hand will be a different matter.  If they found him to have deserted then they'll issue a Medical Discharge and let him be on his way

[Kazan]

Based on the two previous incidents where he left base to meditate and clear his head, I think he did the same thing as he didn't leave with any provisions whatsoever although I would say that it was a bad idea to which I'm sure he's more than learned his lesson.  There's a claim out there that he left a note saying that he was going to start a new life but no note has ever surfaced.

We will all have to wait and see but he's not going to be charged with anything...the 350k tax free money on the other hand will be a different matter.  If they found him to have deserted then they'll issue a Medical Discharge and let him be on his way

Oh, then its perfectly fine 

WTF, last time I checked you don't just get to choose to walk off duty in the military.

[Dos Equis]

Oh, then its perfectly fine 

WTF, last time I checked you don't just get to choose to walk off duty in the military.

Exactly.  In the middle of combat operations no less.  Crazy.

[RRKore]

Oh, then its perfectly fine 

WTF, last time I checked you don't just get to choose to walk off duty in the military.

Playing the devil's advocate, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to think that these days, with an all-volunteer army, maybe you should be able to leave when you want. 

[Dos Equis]

Playing the devil's advocate, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to think that these days, with an all-volunteer army, maybe you should be able to leave when you want.  

Unless you raise your hand and take an oath, giving up your right to "leave when you want."  

And that's not being devil's advocate.  That's buffoonery.  A Soldier being able to "leave when you want" during the middle of combat operations?  And you claim to have served in the Army?  Seriously?  lol

[Kazan]

Playing the devil's advocate, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to think that these days, with an all-volunteer army, maybe you should be able to leave when you want. 

I assume this is sarcasm.

[RRKore]

I assume this is sarcasm.

No, not really.  Leaving the armed forces when one wants when joining is voluntary doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

If a soldier voluntarily joins the service because of moral obligations and patriotic pride (like many did after 9/11) but then finds out that his (for him) soul-destroying duties offend his moral sensibilities, it's probably better for all concerned to just let him go (with a couple of conditions, though).

Obviously, any actions taken by a soldier that would endanger his fellow soldiers can't be permitted.  I'm pretty sure everyone would accept that.

Also, the soldier needs to pay back the amount of money (maybe a pro-rated amount?) it cost to train him or her.

I see this (being able to resign from an all-volunteer force) as being more honorable than some of what I saw happening when I was in the service:  Back when I was taking the year-long Russian Language Basic course at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA years ago (1984) some female soldiers would totally work the system by taking a nearly a whole language course, 8 hours/day, 5 days/week (for up to a year for some languages) and then, before getting an assignment or even going off to their secondary MOS school (radio school, usually) they'd get pregnant and get out of the service entirely.  AFAIK, they'd have to repay nothing even though they'd taken a spot from someone else for some of the best intensive language instruction you can get.  Hopefully this particular loophole has since been closed.

[Kazan]

No, not really.  Leaving the armed forces when one wants when joining is voluntary doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

If a soldier voluntarily joins the service because of moral obligations and patriotic pride (like many did after 9/11) but then finds out that his (for him) soul-destroying duties offend his moral sensibilities, it's probably better for all concerned to just let him go (with a couple of conditions, though).

Obviously, any actions taken by a soldier that would endanger his fellow soldiers can't be permitted.  I'm pretty sure everyone would accept that.

Also, the soldier needs to pay back the amount of money (maybe a pro-rated amount?) it cost to train him or her.

I see this (being able to resign from an all-volunteer force) as being more honorable than some of what I saw happening when I was in the service:  Back when I was taking the year-long Russian Language Basic course at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA years ago (1984) some female soldiers would totally work the system by taking a nearly a whole language course, 8 hours/day, 5 days/week (for up to a year for some languages) and then, before getting an assignment or even going off to their secondary MOS school (radio school, usually) they'd get pregnant and get out of the service entirely.  AFAIK, they'd have to repay nothing even though they'd taken a spot from someone else for some of the best intensive language instruction you can get.  Hopefully this particular loophole has since been closed.

What you are describing is a "shitbird", if the COC was worth damn this guy would have been a POGUE. My guess is his dumbass would have done the same thing.

[headhuntersix]

Playing the devil's advocate, it doesn't seem totally unreasonable to think that these days, with an all-volunteer army, maybe you should be able to leave when you want. 

What......come on dude. You were a crypto weenie but you know better.

[RRKore]

What......come on dude. You were a crypto weenie but you know better.

LOL.  Haven't heard that term in a loooooong time.

I was hoping you'd weigh in here. 

It's true, I haven't really thoroughly thought out the position of volunteer soldiers being able to quit when they want. 

Is the main objection that when shit gets bad most everyone will run off or is there some other even more important issue I'm missing?

It's been 25 years or so since I got out but IIRC, the couple of guys we had who decided that they just didn't want to play any more were pretty much just let go with only a "less than honorable" discharge or something like that.  (There were no combat operations going on at all when I served, though.)

[Dos Equis]

LOL.  Haven't heard that term in a loooooong time.

I was hoping you'd weigh in here. 

It's true, I haven't really thoroughly thought out the position of volunteer soldiers being able to quit when they want. 

Is the main objection that when shit gets bad most everyone will run off or is there some other even more important issue I'm missing?

It's been 25 years or so since I got out but IIRC, the couple of guys we had who decided that they just didn't want to play any more were pretty much just let go with only a "less than honorable" discharge or something like that.  (There were no combat operations going on at all when I served, though.)

lol

[RRKore]

lol

Why lol, BB?

FWIW, one of the guys who ended up getting out pretty much quit because of a long-running personality conflict with his female platoon (or maybe squad?) leader over barracks-related bullshit.  He seemed really intelligent (and had a college degree when he joined) so he had no trouble with the language training but he was one of those irritable guys who was very quick to get angry and lose control of his mouth.  One of those guys who's prone to go on long and amusing rants (which had a lot to do with why I liked him).  It was a miracle that he made it as far as he did, if you ask me.

The other guy I didn't know but supposedly he was a dick that nobody liked who'd previously gotten in trouble for harassing women on his floor by going into their bathroom.  Because of that, supposedly some female soldier was so traumatized that she was allowed to live off of the kaserne (small base).

[Dos Equis]

Why lol, BB?

FWIW, one of the guys who ended up getting out pretty much quit because of a long-running personality conflict with his female platoon (or maybe squad?) leader over barracks-related bullshit.  He seemed really intelligent (and had a college degree when he joined) so he had no trouble with the language training but he was one of those irritable guys who was very quick to get angry and lose control of his mouth.  One of those guys who's prone to go on long and amusing rants (which had a lot to do with why I liked him).  It was a miracle that he made it as far as he did, if you ask me.

The other guy I didn't know but supposedly he was a dick that nobody liked who'd previously gotten in trouble for harassing women on his floor by going into their bathroom.  Because of that, supposedly some female soldier was so traumatized that she was allowed to live off of the kaserne (small base).

Yes, a couple guys walked into the office, said I quit, and were given an other than honorable discharge.  LOL!  When you are making up stories, you should do more homework.  You sound like a really bad B movie actor.

If you actually did serve, thank you very much for getting out. 

[RRKore]

Yes, a couple guys walked into the office, said I quit, and were given an other than honorable discharge.  LOL!  When you are making up stories, you should do more homework.  You sound like a really bad B movie actor.

If you actually did serve, thank you very much for getting out. 

Gee, you seem very sure of yourself for a guy who claims service but won't say what job he did. 

Honestly, BB, the reason I can't give a lot of details is it didn't happen to me so I'm not really sure about the "hows and whys" of it.  I can only say what I saw and maybe wasn't paying super close attention since I spent the last year of my enlistment spending very little time on army shit (other than working my shift at the listening station) because I was spending all of my free time with my German girlfriend from Kaufbeuren who had an apartment in town because she attended Augsburg University.  (I ended up marrying her about a year after I got out).

I'm telling you, though, among the linguist and analyst MOS's in Germany in 86/87 the army seemed pretty much OK with sending people home who really didn't want to be there.  If a soldiers made a big deal out of wanting out they would immediately lose their security clearance so they'd be on casual duty for at least a few months during which they'd catch shit from other soldiers (mostly just the higher-ranked enlisted, though -- most of the other spec4's didn't really GAF).  They'd also might pick up an Article 15 (for disobedience of some kind, I guess) but other than that and some kind of less than honorable discharge, that was about it.  Like I said, there were no combat operations going on so it wasn't like a lot of folks were clamoring to leave.

BTW, I learned this stuff when I tried to talk the one guy into staying but his mind was made up and he pretty much laughed at my concerns as to what effect a crappy discharge could have on his life (he already had a degree and just wanted to go back to school for his masters).   

Now, I'm not sure why the army wasn't making a big deal about folks separating early.  Maybe it was a security clearance thing or maybe they were just trying to shed salaries.  IIRC, the army WAS giving out "early outs" at about that time.

BTW, you don't need to thank me for getting out.  Staying in was never my plan regardless of the pretty decent reenlistment bonus they'd try to dangle in front of you.  Once I maxed out my college money, it was time to leave.