Court marshaled after being retired for a non military offense?

1SG David Niles — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 13:11:12 -0500

So recently the Supreme Court declined to consider if it is constitutional that retired service members are subject to the UCMJ trial by court martial for actions taken in the civilian world against civilians. What this means is that they agree that it is constitutional, that you can be court marshaled and sentence while being retired. Did you know this? Do you agree? In two of the cases where the navy did this to one and I believe the army did this to another they reduce in rank, dishonorable discharge, and prison time. One was enlisting and the other was officer. This means they lost their pension as well.?

Response by 1SG David Niles made Mar 7 at 2019 1:23 PM

1SG David Niles — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 13:23:24 -0500

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/22/supreme-court-retirees-can-be-court-martialed-crimes-committed-after-service.html

Supreme Court: Retirees Can Be Court-Martialed for Crimes Committed After Service

In denying a recent petition, the U.S. Supreme Court preserves UCMJ jurisdiction for retirees.

Response by SGT Charles Bartell made Mar 7 at 2019 1:37 PM

SGT Charles Bartell — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 13:37:05 -0500

I did not reed the whole article, But my understanding of the U.C.M.J. is that if they wher indead on some sort of reserve list at the time of the aleged crime's.
Then they are in deed subject to the U.C.M.J. and all it's rulings.
I think if there are any J.A.G. officers out ther that would like to weigh in on this.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Mar 7 at 2019 4:11 PM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 16:11:13 -0500

One of the qualifiers to this little GEM will be is it cost effective to bring SPC back on AD, assign a JAG officer, quarter, pay and tie up resources because he SAID a POTUS was a POOPYHEAD or flipped the bird to some COL. I think it would not be cost effective to do this and I think it is just a tool in the tool box for something actually serious. I have no fears of being recalled for another blue book for being an A-hole.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 7 at 2019 4:48 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 16:48:53 -0500

I think it is profoundly stupid to say receiving a military pension is consent to UCMJ.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2019 5:33 PM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 17:33:17 -0500

Just my 2 cents. In the Guard, we have two different retirement options. Option A is fully severing from the Army. Option B is called "Retired Awaiting Pay". Option B can be recalled if necessary. Option A cannot. So if someone is retired awaiting pay, I could definitely see them being recalled to duty for UCMJ action should the offense be severe enough.

Response by LTC Peter Hartman made Mar 7 at 2019 5:36 PM

LTC Peter Hartman — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 17:36:21 -0500

I can't imagine any military service would waste its resources to try a retired member for a crime not related to his service.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2019 6:16 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 18:16:55 -0500

It's legal because that's how Congress wrote the law. Do I like it, no. Am I worried, no.
If I were a retired military serving overseas, who sexually assaulted someone, especially a citizen of the host nation, then I'd be worried. As I recall, that's about what the 2-3 times this has been applied.
Getting Congress to change this stands as much chance as them passing term limits.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2019 8:15 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 20:15:50 -0500

Personally I think this should only be exercised in a case that could be considered a capital crime. But if you look at what the original law was for it does make sense. This gives the government a chance to determine if a criminal, who just so happens to be retired, should no longer be entitled to benefits and entitlements that a civilian court has no authority over.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2019 9:18 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 21:18:56 -0500

I may be wrong, but I'm 95% sure that the standard is for offenses committed while they were in but were only tried after they were out. And at that rate they get called back to service for their trial and punishments to be charged.

What I stated above, I think is fair. However, if in fact retired members can be punished under UCMJ for offenses committed after service, than I agree it is questionable.

But based on my understanding of UCMJ (as taught to me by a JAG during my MP training) it only applies to prior service members that are being tried for offenses committed while they were in service.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Mar 7 at 2019 9:39 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 21:39:40 -0500

The offense was against a dependent and overseas. IMO the UCMJ is the perfect jurisdiction for this guy. See this part of the brief to the court: "Petitioner’s victim, identified here by her initials (KAH), worked as a bartender at Teaserzand was the dependent wife of an active-duty Marine sergeant sta-tioned at MCAS Iwakuni." https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-306/78823/ [login to see] 0058681_18-306%20Larrabee%20-%20Opp.pdf

20190109120058681_18-306%2520Larrabee%2520-%2520Opp.pdf

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 7 at 2019 10:38 PM

Maj John Bell — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 22:38:33 -0500

If your pay check says US Treasury and your offense brings discredit upon the military service in a very public manner... you get hammered. That was and is my understanding from day 1.

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Jun 10 at 2021 12:54 PM

SFC Randy Hellenbrand — Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:54:24 -0400

I hope so!!! I see a lot of insurrectionists that need a little UCMJ!!!