I was under the impression "POW" was a very specific designation that is applied under circumstances that don't apply to him.
I'd rather call any military member held captive by a terrorist organization that we are in conflict with, especially for extended duration, a POW than anything else.
In this specific case I'd rather treat him as a former POW until a court of law determines otherwise. Hell, he should be considered a POW even if a court of law DOES state that he screwed up in all but the most extreme circumstances.
My thoughts on the matter: Desertion, AWOL, it doesn't matter. You are still a member of the United States Armed Forces until you are formally discharged, such as through a court-martial. No such action was taken before his capture; ergo he's a POW. A desertion(as opposed to a mere AWOL) charge MAY result in the forfeiting of all pay and allowances from the time of the desertion, but do they have enough evidence to prosecute either? I don't know. Do they WANT the press from holding a trial on the only POW of significant time in ages? Probably not.
In any case, I figure his being assigned to a protocol office is more to enable them to be readily available to massage any public statements that he might make, or more accurately to be available for interview by said protocol office before THEY make a statement, whether it's regarding him, his time in captivity, capture, the Taliban, whatever.
Do deserters normally get paid for the time they spend AWOL?
No, but in this case he was maybe AWOL for maybe a day before being captured, at which point it wasn't his choice anymore.
Isn't calling him a POW when he isn't something of an insult to real POW's?
I wouldn't say so, no. He might of had an easier time of it than many, but not all German held POWs were treated horribly either. Honestly, as a military member I'd consider it scarier to remove the designation from him.
By that point folks will just say "what difference does it make?".
Probably part of the reasoning.
I read, but now forget, what his official status was while he was gone, but if they are talking back pay, it must have been deserter. I'm 99.95% sure if they think you're a POW the whole time you keep getting paid.
I'm 99.95% certain his status was 'POW'. Why? You don't promote deserters with their peers like you do with POWs.
I figure that lacking dependents they stop his pay in favor of escrowing/safeguarding it themselves. Money deposited in a bank with nobody to manage it is subject to disappearing. Instead I believe the procedure is to set it up so the pay is deposited into the 'Savings Deposit Program' which pays 10% interest a year. 'Back Pay' in this case is going through all the paperwork, raises and such and double checking everything is correct.
He was an E3 grunt, what was the highest clearance he could have had, a Confidential? Probably not even that.
Secret is actually the standard; they want it today to merely give you access to NIPRnet. Of course, as an E3 I had a TS/SCI. It's all about the job, not the rank.
----
In any case after saying all of the above my position is lacking any HUGE evidence I think they should give him his back pay and quietly separate/medically retire him.