SAN ANTONIO - The U.S. Army is holding an Article 32 hearing in the case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was charged in March with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly leaving his post in southeastern Afghanistan in June 2009.

Here's a more detailed look at the procedures involved in an Article 32 hearing and what happens afterward.

LIKE A MINI-TRIAL

Article 32 hearings are often likened to grand jury proceedings, but legal experts say they are actually more like mini-trials. At Bergdahl's hearing on Thursday, military prosecutors presented evidence and called three witnesses - the heads of Bergdahl's platoon, company and battalion at the time he went missing. Each spoke in detail about the difficulties involved in the 45-day search for Bergdahl and how his disappearance put the thousands of soldiers who searched for him in danger. Although nobody died because of the 45-day search, they said the soldiers got little food or rest, endured searing-hot temperatures and encountered more improvised explosive devices than they ordinarily would have. Bergdahl's attorneys got to cross-examine each witness and will get to call their own and present evidence once the hearing resumes Friday. A preliminary hearing officer, whose role is similar to that of a judge, is presiding over the affair.

NO IMMEDIATE DECISION

After the testimony and evidence has been presented, the two sides will make their arguments about how they think the case should be resolved. Prosecutors could argue that it should go to a court-martial while defense attorneys could argue that the charges should be resolved by less severe means. The preliminary hearing officer will consider the evidence and lawyers' arguments and will recommend a course of action in a report that could take several weeks to complete.