You and I both know from our careers that this is the most likely scenario.
To be truthful, part of the political game the services play in DC are budget related.
I worked at the Pentagon for a general who eventually made 4 star rank. I was going over some things with him, and was complaining about having to kowtow to Congress during testimony.
He sighed, and sat me down. He explained to me that politics in DC was a dirty, and sometime dangerous game. Dangerous not only for individuals, but dangerous for the nation. He said, "There is one advocate for national security on XXX issue - us. No one else."
He explained that budget were in the billions, as well as manpower levels, research dollars, and approval. And he disabused me of trusting either political party (in terms of budget support). "The politicians you think will always be on your side will turn on you on a dime."
He was right. In the last few years, it was the Republicans who were hot and heavy to cut budgets. Did they go after welfare, entitlements, foreign aid, money for illegals? No. In fact, entitlements were exempt from cuts under Sequestration, while the military was forced to "pay for" 50% of all cuts. This was after Obama had already cut the military budget 5 years in a row.
I say all only to explain why I believe the Army will go the middle route on Bergdahl. If they chose to throw the book at him, a lot of Democrats will read this as the Army was trying to embarrass their "god" Obama. And when it comes time to approve budgets, they will probably retaliate against the Army (right or wrong).
Money is an issue.
I also think the Army is just tired of it and wants to bury it.