Are retirees subject to UCMJ?

Yes they can. You are still accountable for your actions or non-actions even though you’re retired. You notice that some of our retired Staff Officers don’t like to rock the boat because of the UCMJ.

I thought this past year the military court said that retired military could not be court martial for civilian offenses.

I would believe that the question above should be Certainly NOT. Lets keep UCMJ on active duty where it belongs.

I was separated in October 1968 as a Sgt. E-5. I had served with the Army Security Agency (Radio Research in 'Nam) with a Top Secret clearance. I never signed any agreement, but I knew not to tell anyone what I was doing. After all; you don't want our adversaries to know anything. If I had gotten in trouble with law enforcement, I'm sure my military record would be available if they 'run a background check. Then, the FBI would probably monitor my situation.

Short answer is yes. Long answer is whether the violation brings the military in it. A felony charge will almost guarantee a “check in” from Uncle Sam. Misdemeanor depends on the case. I have yet to see or hear of an Article 134 against a retiree (the “catch-all” article).

It would require the crime having either occurred while the "retiree" was still in service and been uncovered due to various issues being exposed to the public regarding the cover up and lack of investigation. Or would have to be of such great event that it's connected in someway to the retiree's former career in service.

Hypothetically, on event 1: it would be a "war crime" that was covered up and that the exposure would give the military a huge black eye if uncovered due to events happening that would show there was intentional malfeasance of those who either covered up the crime or involved. The upcoming film "The Last Full Measure" deals with this since there was "friendly fire" involved and was covered up that the officers involved knew about it and tried to prevent the events that happened from being brought out 34 years afterwards.

On event 2: It would be if a retiree turned private contractor was found guilty of selling defective and malfunctioning technology to the military and was able to avoid punishment in the public courts. Therefore "they" could be summoned back to the service and charged under the UCMJ under the articles; but it would likely take an act of Congress and they'd likely die in custody before they exposed their connections to anyone in uniform or government currently before they would even set foot in the court room.

You are places in the inactive reserves for 4 years if you separate from active duty after your first 4 years. (8 year commitment) if you have served 8 full years you are not even in the inactive reserves. Once you are no longer committed to the military, the UCMJ is meaningless.

They need to be brought back to active duty until Title 10, United States Code, to be subject to jurisdiction under the UCMJ.

Yes they can be subject to UCMJ(brought back on active duty temporarily) if they violated the UCMJ while they were on active duty and the statute of limitations for the alleged offense has not passed. They can Any misconduct they commit once they have exited the military will be adjudicated by civilian authorities.

Why is the UCMJ relevant to any situation that did not happen while someone was with in their commitment? There are laws in place to deal with that for everyone. This just seems like an over reach or a way to take an easier route on a weak case that would never make it in civilian courts.