Court Withdraws Opinion Saying Military Retirees Shouldn't Be Court-Martialed

military.com ^ | October 8, 2019 | Gina Harkins

[stylin19a]

actually an interesting appeal.
Below is the opinion that has been withdrawn.

"Retired reservists who do not collect a retirement pay until they are 60-years-old do not fall under the UCMC’s jurisdiction — creating what a panel of three judges in July labeled “disparate treatment” among retirees.

"Congress has determined that some, but not all, military retirees should remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) while they are retired," Navy Capt. James Crisfield wrote in the opinion in July.

“Accordingly, the sections of the UCMJ subjecting regular component retirees to UCMJ jurisdiction are unconstitutional,” Crisfield added."

[Jumper]

Rather than a political tool which is improper and illegal political charges, political legal actions are federal or Civil court actions. The military should by matter of legal house keeping, establish, precedent that military cases are UCMJ and political attacks remanded to no military courts.

[BlueLancer]

“Retirees (those who spend at least 20 years in the military and draw retired pay) can be recalled to active duty for life. However, the policy established in DOD Directive 1352.1 - Management and Mobilization of Regular and Reserve Retired Military Members, makes the recall to active duty unlikely for those who have been retired for more than five years, and those over age 60.”

Let 'em recall me back to active duty ... E-7s are getting a helluva lot more pay now than they were in my day, so then, when they re-retire me, I could draw my retirement pay with respect to the new increased pay scale ...

[Drago]

I doubt whether many “deep staters” are still on retired reserve or fleet reserve status.

[napscoordinator]

No need to go through court martial when a civilian court gives him a felony, he automatically loses all benefits including pensions.

[napscoordinator]

For it to really benefit you, you’d need 3 years to get the top 3 highest earning wage.

[Notthereyet]

“No need to go through court martial when a civilian court gives him a felony, he automatically loses all benefits including pensions.”
_________________________________

Would that be from the felony causing the individual to no longer able to serve actively in the military?

On one hand it seems creepy and on the other hand it makes perfectly good sense.

[napscoordinator]

I believe it’s beyond just being able to serve. Let’s say you retire as a chief after 25 years. Twenty years later you rob a bank. Jury finds you guilty of felony theft. Bye pension. Let’s say you get a miracle and the jury says misdemeanor and 3 years in jail......you keep the pension. Could the military ask for a review? Perhaps and take it away anyway, but most likely wouldn’t go into the weeds that far down the chain. An admiral being more of an interest story might catch some attention in same scenario.

[Notthereyet]

Good explanation. Thank you!