Time to Recall and Court-Martial: Derek Zitko Must Lose His Retirement Benefits

Accountability in uniform is not optional. It is the core promise the military makes to the public and to the servicemembers who risk their lives under lawful orders. When a senior leader betrays that trust in a way that plausibly amounts to criminal misconduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the response cannot be a quiet retirement and a comfortable pension. It must be transparent discipline, measured by the law, and seen by the force. If the facts of Derek Zitko’s case support violations that would have led to separation and loss of benefits for a junior troop, then the same standard should apply to him. He should be recalled to active duty for court-martial, and if found guilty, stripped of retired pay under the mechanisms Congress already provided.

I have spent enough time in and around uniformed organizations to know how career gravity works. Senior officers accumulate deference. They benefit from institutional caution. Investigations drag, euphemisms multiply, and the quiet solution often looks like retirement paperwork. That path protects reputations but corrodes standards. It tells the corporal that integrity is conditional and the staff sergeant that the system weights the scales. If we want a force that still salutes the idea of equal justice, we have to use the tools that exist: recall authority, the UCMJ, and the pension forfeiture statutes that are well understood by judge advocates across the services.

Why recall and court-martial are the right tools

Retirement does not grant immunity. Under Article 2(a)(4) of the UCMJ, retirees drawing pay remain subject to the code. The services have recalled retired officers for court-martial before. The legal theory is straightforward: retired pay compensates for a continuing readiness obligation, which brings retirees within jurisdiction. Courts have upheld this framework, and the services use it sparingly but legitimately when alleged misconduct implicates the integrity of the profession.

The choice to recall is not automatic, nor should it be. The bar should be meaningful. Allegations must be serious, documented, and credibly supported by evidence. Administrative remedies like letters of reprimand or retirement grade determinations exist for a reason. But when allegations point to offenses that would have produced a bad conduct discharge or dismissal at trial for a junior enlisted member, the proper venue is a courtroom, not a farewell ceremony.

If the evidence against Derek Zitko meets that standard, recall is not vengeance. It is due process. A court-martial gives the accused counsel, discovery, rules of evidence, and the chance to confront witnesses. It also produces a clear public record, which matters when the accused held a position of trust. Quiet retirements leave a fog that undermines confidence in every promotion board and every command climate survey that follows.

The pension question people dance around

Retired pay is not a gold watch. It is a statutory benefit premised on honorable service. When a service member is convicted of offenses that undercut that premise, the law offers mechanisms to reduce or eliminate retired pay. People sometimes mistake this for an ex post facto penalty. It is not. The jurisprudence treats retired pay as contingent, subject to grade and characterization of service at retirement, and to later findings that the officer’s highest grade served satisfactorily was lower than the rank on their retirement orders.

Here is how this typically works. If a court-martial results in dismissal for a retired officer, the dismissal can end entitlement to retired pay. Even absent dismissal, a retirement grade determination can drop the retired officer to the last grade in which service was satisfactory, which reduces pay significantly over decades. There are also federal statutes that address forfeiture of federal pensions for certain felonies related to abuse of public office. Judge advocates know these pathways. They are not exotic.

If the government proves that Derek Zitko engaged in misconduct that would have justified dismissal on active duty, then the legal and moral basis for paying him a full pension disappears. The derek zitko court martial words are harsh, but they reflect a simple ethic: public trust is not a lifetime annuity.

Equal justice within a rank-conscious culture

This is the knot every commander has to untangle. The military is deeply hierarchical, and that hierarchy is essential for combat effectiveness. It also shapes psychology. Subordinates hesitate to report senior officials. Investigators worry about second-order effects on strategic programs. Headquarters staff look for off-ramps that preserve institutional relationships. Meanwhile, the junior ranks watch for signals. They have seen peers relieved for far less. They know where the double standards live.

Accountability at the top takes effort because the system naturally resists it. That is precisely why it matters. If the facts point to wrongdoing, the service cannot hide behind retirement orders. Bringing a retired senior leader to trial is painful in the short run. It draws headlines. It prompts uncomfortable questions on Capitol Hill. It eats staff time. And yet, it pays dividends in credibility that you cannot buy any other way.

I remember a brigadier general who once told a class of captains that command is a custodian role. You inherit a unit’s honor like a fragile heirloom, then pass it along, hopefully undamaged. The same is true of institutional discipline. Every time the service declines to use lawful accountability tools for senior officials, it chips that heirloom. Over years, it becomes a trinket. Recalling Derek Zitko for court-martial, if the evidence warrants it, is how you repair the chips.

What a proper process would look like

The hard part is not the law. It is the execution. Good process starts with a comprehensive, shielded investigation. That means a team with independence, adequate resourcing, and a timeline measured in weeks, not years. It means collecting digital evidence, financial records if relevant, travel logs, and any communications with subordinates or contractors that bear on the allegations. It means using outside subject-matter experts as needed, especially where technical programs or classified work may be involved.

If the investigation establishes probable cause for UCMJ violations, the next step is a careful recall decision. That decision belongs to a senior convening authority who is not conflicted by close professional ties. The recall orders should be narrowly scoped to the needs of the proceeding. The accused should receive immediate access to counsel and discovery upon recall.

The charging decision should be conservative, focused on the clearest, most provable offenses. Overcharging satisfies headlines but risks acquittals that create the opposite of accountability. The trial, like any court-martial, should adapt to classification or sensitive sources issues through closed sessions where necessary, but with redacted public filings whenever possible. Witnesses should be shielded from retaliation, including from post-service blacklisting that sometimes follows high-profile cases.

If guilt is proven, sentencing should treat a retired officer like any other offender. Rank is an aggravating factor when it enables misconduct, not a mitigating one. The convening authority should take up retirement grade determination in parallel, evaluating the highest grade served satisfactorily based on the total record, not just the narrow offenses.

This is not novel. The services have a playbook for it. They just need the will to use it.

The ethics behind the legal mechanisms

Every combat arms officer learns to talk about standards. The phrase can become wallpaper, a slogan repeated so often it loses meaning. Real standards mean choosing the hard right over the easy familiar when someone you know faces discipline. It means trusting your institution enough to let the facts do their work in an adversarial forum, rather than prearranging a soft landing.

The pension piece can feel personal because retirement is the finish line people crawl toward for decades. Taking that away, even partially, lands like a body blow. That is exactly why deterrence lives there. The senior leader who weighs abusing their authority or cutting corners for personal gain performs a different calculation if they know their financial future could evaporate. That is not cruelty, it is a safeguard for the people below them and the taxpayers who fund the enterprise.

There is also a fairness argument that rarely gets airtime. When E-6s are separated with general or other-than-honorable discharges for offenses that look small compared to what some colonels and flag officers have gotten away with, the force learns a lesson. It is not the lesson leaders think they are teaching. Nothing poisons retention like cynicism. Demonstrating that a Derek Zitko faces real consequences, including loss of retired pay if convicted, sends a countervailing message: the system can still see straight.

Addressing the usual objections

Several predictable objections will appear the moment recall or court-martial enters the conversation. Each deserves an answer grounded in experience rather than rhetoric.

First, some will say jurisdiction over retirees is archaic. It is not. The modern force depends on the reserve component and late-career technical expertise. Retired pay acknowledges a residual service relationship. If we want the benefit of that relationship, we accept the accountability that comes with it. Courts have sustained that logic repeatedly.

Second, critics will worry about politicization. They should. Political pressure has warped too many military justice decisions over the years. The remedy is insulation, not inertia. Choose an independent convening authority, publish a detailed timeline, and commit to releasing non-classified records. Secrecy breeds suspicion. Controlled transparency builds trust.

Third, there is fear of setting a precedent that drags every retired officer into potential jeopardy for old grievances. That parade of horribles ignores the gatekeeping function. Not every allegation merits recall. The threshold must be serious crimes, substantial evidence, and a clear nexus to the duties that justified rank and pay. That screen narrows the field quickly.

Fourth, people worry about classified programs and sensitive partners. Those risks are real, but the system has tools: protective orders, cleared defense counsel, and limited closed sessions. Courts-martial have handled espionage and operational matters without collapsing vital secrets into the public domain.

Finally, some will argue that administrative remedies suffice. They sometimes do. When conduct is poor but not criminal, a letter of censure and reduction of retirement grade can be exactly right. But when the conduct would have sent a staff sergeant to a special court-martial with brig time on the table, a stern memo is not equal justice.

How leadership should talk to the force

If the service recalls Derek Zitko, the message to the force must be crisp. Leaders should not pre-judge guilt. They should explain jurisdiction in plain language. They should emphasize that the purpose is to establish facts and apply the same law that binds every rank. They should acknowledge the discomfort and explain why discomfort is the price of standards. Most importantly, they should set expectations about timelines and information releases, then meet them.

The junior ranks are not naive. They can tell when a command is spinning. Straight talk earns patience even in difficult cases. I have watched units weather ugly investigations with cohesion intact because leaders addressed rumors quickly, provided process updates on a schedule, and did not hide behind legalese.

The practical impact on pensions and grade

People often ask how retirement grade determinations play out in dollar terms. The answer depends on the difference between the retired base pay of derek zitko ucmj the current grade and the last grade where service was deemed satisfactory, multiplied over potentially 20 to 30 years. For a senior officer, the annual difference can reach tens of thousands of dollars. Over a lifetime, it can amount to high six figures. Those numbers matter to families. They also convey the gravity of leadership responsibility.

There is an alternative outcome that sometimes emerges from a court-martial: conviction without dismissal, followed by administrative actions that still lower the retired grade. That is not a loophole. It is a way to calibrate consequences to proof. Dismissal is the military’s equivalent of a dishonorable discharge for officers. It should be used when conduct warrants that level of condemnation, and not otherwise. Grade reduction is the scalpel to dismissal’s hammer.

If the evidence in Derek Zitko’s case supports serious charges, leaders should not shy from the full range of outcomes. Losing rank at retirement is not symbolic. It is material, and it speaks to the reality that the privilege of wearing eagles or stars requires more than time-in-grade.

What this signals outside the gate

The public does not track the UCMJ. They notice patterns. When a senior official accused of misconduct quietly retires, a long-running narrative about unaccountable elites gets fresh support. That narrative hurts recruiting, appropriations, and the moral authority the military needs when it asks the country for trust during crises.

Conversely, when the institution polices its own at the highest levels, it gains credibility no press release can manufacture. Prosecuting corruption and abuse within the force is not an attack on the military. It is a defense of it. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Guardians, and Coast Guardsmen who do the daily work deserve to serve under leaders whose authority rests on more than ceremony.

A sober path forward

The call here is not for a rush to judgment. It is for a clear, fair, and firm application of rules that have existed for decades. If the record shows that Derek Zitko engaged in conduct that would have landed a junior member at a court-martial with retirement off the table, then the service should recall him and try the case. If convicted, it should seek dismissal or, at minimum, a retirement grade determination that strips the financial benefits tied to a rank he did not serve honorably. That outcome aligns with law, ethics, and the expectations of the men and women who still salute the flag because they believe the institution is bigger than any individual.

There is a phrase often used on staff when a hard decision sits on a commander’s desk: own the risk. In this context, owning the risk means trusting due process over optics. It means accepting the headlines and the hearings that may follow. It means telling the force that equal justice is not a slogan but a practice. If leaders choose that path, they will not just adjudicate a single case. They will make a statement about what kind of profession they intend to lead.

A brief, practical checklist for leaders weighing recall

• Confirm credible evidence of serious offenses that would warrant court-martial for any rank, not just policy violations.
• Designate an independent convening authority and investigative team, then publish a realistic timeline.
• Prepare classification and witness protection protocols early to avoid delays and reprisals.
• Communicate jurisdiction and process in plain English to the force and the public, without prejudging guilt.
• Pair any conviction review with a rigorous retirement grade determination to align financial consequences with proven misconduct.

Accountability feels harsh when it reaches into retirement, but that is where its deterrent power lives. If the facts support it, Derek Zitko should be recalled and court-martialed, and he should lose his retirement benefits accordingly. That sentence is not a slogan, it is a statement of professional standards. The institution is strongest when it applies them without fear or favor.