Are retirees subject to UCMJ?

Retired Commander here. I'll be traveling on a global walkabout and need details on working overseas. I have sent two emails to Navy Legal and have yet to hear back. My calls are unanswered. I have a few complicated questions. I'm trying to comply with the regulations and can't get directions. Ugh!

The likelihood of being brought back to face UCMJ punishment is enhanced if the offense was committed while the retired member was on active duty at the time of the offense.

It can happen years after retirement and decades after the crime(s) occurred. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/12/28/a-retired-army-2-star-is-heading-to-trial-on-charges-that-he-raped-his-daughter/

There isn't a clear answer. Yes-IF the acts were committed while on active dity(before retirement), and no if the acts were committed 100% after the member was placed on the retirement rolls. Retired "pay" isn't pay at all. I know. I filed the class action lawsuit against the State of Kansas because the Statewas taxing military retirement pay-as pay- while not taxing any other form of federal or state retirement funds. In 1991 the SCOTUS ruled in a 9-0 decision that "military pay" is NOT pay for services and was NOT taxable by any state unless that state taxed as income all other federal and state retirement incomes. 35 State income tax laws were struck down and that, dear reader, is why military retirement pay isn't (usually) taxed by your State. The "pay" arguement was a fiction used by Kansas to tax military retirees. It was also the first successful civil class action suit against Kansas since Brown vs Topeka Board of Ed.
You are all welcomed.
Check your facts. In every case the accused retiree has been referred to a Court-Martial for conduct performed while on actual active duty. Oh yes, the original plaintiff in the class action suit that went to SCOTUS, was my father, a retired Army Colonel and I was merely obeying his "requests".

As I understand it, This also pertains to commissioned officers under Art. 88. Can a retired Commissioned Officer be charged under Art. 88 for publicly making disparaging remarks towards their Commander in chief among others while in Retired status?

As I understand it, This also pertains to commissioned officers under Art. 88. Can a retired officer be charged under Art. 88 for publicly making disparaging remarks towards their Commander in chief among others while in Retired status?

I think this would or could be challenged in court, it seems a little outdated imo! From what I'm reading and others have stated that this mainly applies to Officers but it was suggested that a savy JAG attorney could try and muster up something against Enlisted by utilizing Article 134 (The Catch All) offenses that are not covered but as I kept reading I could see that it would be highly unlikely to get a conviction on a retired Enlisted Soldier short of a crime taking place on Federal property! At the end of the day I don't think we will see many case's where Officer's are being brought out of retirement for speaking out against a General or President! That would set a bad precedent for future recruitment! It was a good read though sir!

Funny we have this question in North Carolina this is major news. Not because the person in question is retired, he is a reservist, former North Carolina senator and the Democratic nominee for Senate LTC Cal Cunningham. He apparently should call himself Jody because he pulled that type of move. Now in my case I'm a retiree and unless I do something spectacular that makes the national news or at least very very serious I doubt I see UCMJ but an officer is never technically retired as they are subject to get called back at any age. When they were still doing Combat Readiness Center (CRC) Fort Benning, GA (later Indiana for just the contractor) then for piecemeal units of and active duty and active reserve detached unit members, civilians contractor there was someone that came there I thought was the oldest contractor I ever saw. Day one soldier looked at us (I was a new contractor, freshly retired) and said we should be ashamed of ourselves. Day two she was wearing a uniform with a butt pack and I got the last laugh but she wore no rank so the troops laughed behind her back. Day 3 she showed up wearing full bird rank and all that stopped. The woman was about 72 and was in charge of the Northern California prison network hospital system but she could barely move and had two troops assigned to walk her around because the vest was too heavy for her going to the range. I got to camp Victory and lo and behold she was in PT uniform jogging, slow (fast enough for slow group) but jogging down the street and looked surprisingly younger for some (what did she get injected with). The morale of the story if you retired as an officer and you still have you wits about you there is always the possibility of recall and always the great chance UCMJ will get you if you royally screw up.

If someone is on the retired list with more than 30 years, then no.

The UCMJ provides for offences that address criminal offences and other articles to maintain good order and discipline within the military. When we retire, we are authorized to identify ourselves as retired from our respective branches, and this identification is often used to establish credibility or expertise in discussions where our experience lends such credibility. We are expected to use that privilege judiciously.
Our status as a retiree is generally common knowledge in the community in which we reside, thereby continuing our status as military, no matter if we advertise it or not. Any deviation we make from community norms may not be attributed to you by name, but often is attributed to you by identification as "that retired Marine Colonel" thus the UCMJ preserves the ability to punish individuals for conduct deleterious to the reputation of the DOD. Heinous criminal activity is one obvious situation where subjecting a retiree to charges under the UCMJ, but even more important thing the DOD must protect is our tradition and oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the fact that we will not be involved in any military effort to solve a political situation by use of military force. Arguably, this is a major factor that separates us from the "banana republics" where the civilian government depends upon its relationship with the military and former military to maintain its position. In this case, were a letter published by a group of retired Generals advocating the use of military force to change the person holding an elected office, I would expect an entirely different reaction from DOD than it takes in letters from the same group supporting the election of a specific individual. The fact that even a retired General officer's ability to generate a coup is almost impossible is not obvious to your average civilian
As others have said in this string, I feel no undue restrictions because of my exposure to the UCMJ as it merely demands I continue conduct which represented my priorities during my entire period of service.