Restricting Retirees by UCMJ

[TOMAHAWK9521]

Perhaps some of the more learned members of this forum could explain the rules to me with greater clarity. According to this article, I, being medically retired, could be tried under the UCMJ for criminal activity. Theft, rape, murder, I got that. However, my shoulder is still aching after having surgery a couple months ago, and I didn't get much sleep last night, so I'm a little confused this morning about the whole "holding your tongue as a uniformed member of the armed services with regards to negative statements about the CinC and other elected officials."

I was medically retired well over 9 years ago. The army/federal government got its full use out of me and showed me the door. There is no way I can physically handle much more than a brisk walk around the neighborhood, let alone donning the old 18E ruck or going toe-to-toe in hand-to-gland combat. So, am I still held accountable to the UCMJ when it comes to telling an elected federal official to go fist themselves?

According to retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, former deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, the very act of receiving retired pay means that retired personnel are choosing to keep a relationship with the military and accept all that goes with the choice not to terminate their commission or request a discharge.

"As a retired service member subject to military jurisdiction, count me among those of my comrades-in-arms who believe it a small price to pay to maintain the connection with the armed forces," Dunlap wrote.

Well, Chuck. For starters, I'm a retired Master Sergeant, but neither I, nor anyone else addresses me by former rank, so don't expect me to address you or another retiree by theirs unless I choose to.

But I digress. How does receiving retirement pay count as a "choice"? It's part of the contract we made with the federal government. It's not like we all have some K-Street consultation job or board of directors position waiting for us when we get out. Are government officials still held accountable to their oaths of office after they leave office or get voted out? Depending on whether they are establishment or not, the majority of them sure as hell aren't being held accountable while they're still in, so I'm guessing not.

And what about disability? Am I expected to hold my tongue while addressing an elected official because the government is compensating me for all the chassis damage I accrued while in the service of my country? Again, it's not a choice. I would have loved to have done my part and then walked about away, intact, from all affiliation to the government to begin the next chapter of my life. I fulfilled my part of the contract. And I apologize for not dying on the battlefield and have every intention of outliving Methusela, but, as I understand it, the government is required, by law, to fulfill its part through financial and other forms of compensation until such time I deem it appropriate to give up the ghost.

But if my 1st Amendment right to disparage or criticize POTUS or other elected officials, as a military retiree, is put in check by the UCMJ, then I expect to see such characters as McCrystal, McCraven and McCauliff way up at the front of line to get their heads chopped off first.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...r-service.html

[JJ_BPK]

No 2L here but it sounds like a miscreant SJW overstepping their assigned lane.

Given there is some notion that if you FU you can have your tab lifted, but I'm not sure that warrants an article 32 judgment?

[Pete]

Reduced pay for reduced services is how it was explained to me.

One of the plans in all that was when the very big, big, big balloon went up retired folks like you and me (to a certain age) would be recalled to active duty and placed in non-stressful positions freeing up the stud muffins to be sent to the action places.

[The Reaper]

My understanding is that ends when you hit age 62 and are finally released from military obligation.

TR

[Old Dog New Trick]

You have a 1A right to speak your mind. Short of committing treason or sedition, I say fuck them and the horse they kicked last night.

They better have better fish to fry then going after me for saying Barack Hussein Obama was the worst president ever and his wife does look like a member of the primate family.

[JimP]

Great topic and a whole lot of "nuance" in there. Charley is technically correct in the state of the law but wrong in the application.

True - we have a "status" with the Fed Gubmint as a "retiree" (subject to recall in times of need). But that isn't necessarily tied to the receipt of funds via retirement, it is due to the nature of our service and the act of retirement.

True, we could be recalled to active duty for trial. BUT....that trial would need to be tied to conduct whilst in uniform. The Army would have to go to HRC/DA to bring someone back off the retired rolls for courts-martial. That has only happened ONCE in my 36 years of military service and now 2 years as a DA civilian. It is so rare that I can't recall the details of the incident but I know it was recent and related to a sexual assault while in uniform.

There is currently some retired jackwad GO that they recalled and are trying for a series of sexual assaults from years ago, but that is the only thing I am pulling at present. And THAT issue is almost entirely political: anything to do with sexual assault is on the rocket-docket to trial. No Commander has the balls these days to take a hard look at it and make the neutral call, they push everything to trial. The "#METOO movement and automatic inference of guilt has been alive and well in the military for years.

I don't worry about it. Talk shit about whomever you want. Keep your nose clean so far as federal statutes and you are good to hook. We - as retirees - have much greater 1st Amendment protections than we had as uniformed members.

[cat in the hat]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

You have a 1A right to speak your mind. Short of committing treason or sedition, I say fuck them and the horse they kicked last night.

They better have better fish to fry then going after me for saying Barack Hussein Obama was the worst president ever and his wife does look like a member of the primate family.

I agree but would rephrase it by saying;

Kick them and the horse that fucked them last night.
I reserve the right to say cadet bone spurs has the complexion of a cheese it and sounds like a high school freshman who just joined the debate club.
Then again his wife is hot.

[Old Dog New Trick]

[P36]

https://taskandpurpose.com/supreme-court-retirees

This article makes is sound like we can be court martial-ed for actions After retirement. Am I reading that wrong?

[UWOA (RIP)]

Your actions after retirement are not subject to UCMJ; you are subject to civil criminal, not military law for those actions/activities. From what I understand of the regulations, you can be recalled to active duty and undergo courtmartial for actions taken while on active duty ... but the chances of that are so remote because of the expense involved, the protections afforded the individual under the UCMJ and the probable lack of evidence stemming from the age of the alleged offense that the chances are a thousands of a percent (excepting possibly treason or a war crime). Also, based on status (officers are subject to recall until age 70 while soldiers and NCOs cross the threshold at 62) there is only a small window for such an event.

That's the view from here and my $ .02 worth ... for what it's worth.

.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by cat in the hat

I reserve the right to say cadet bone spurs...

You certainly have the right, but you clearly don't know how the Selective Service worked. Trump had several deferments as did most of the men over, say, 20. Married, school, etc. A personal physician had absolutely no say in the matter. If you received a Draft Notice you reported to the local or nearby AFES center for a pre-induction physical and testing. Only then would you be certified fit or not. His deferments went away when the lottery was instituted. He and I were in the same lottery. His number was in the high 300s and mine was in the low 300s. Neither of us would have been called. Of course, I had already joined 2 years before the lottery so it didn't matter to me.