UCMJ After Conviction: Why Derek Zitko Must Lose His Pension and Rank

Military service comes with a compact between the individual and the institution. The force grants trust, authority, and benefits. The service member accepts higher standards of conduct and accountability than a civilian peer. That is not ceremonial rhetoric. It is the backbone of good order and discipline, and it is encoded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When a member violates that trust and is convicted under the UCMJ, the consequences should align with the gravity of the offense and the needs of the service. That is why, in cases like Derek Zitko’s, the moral and institutional logic points in one direction: he should be court-martialed and stripped of both rank and pension if the facts and conviction support those outcomes under law.

I have advised commanders who wrestled with similar decisions. The calls are painful. They pit loyalty to a teammate against loyalty to the mission and to the thousands of troops watching for precedent. The decisions set tone. They teach what the institution rewards, and what it refuses to tolerate. When a serious conviction attaches to a service member, anything less than full accountability undermines that tone, weakens the chain of command, and sends the wrong signal to victims, peers, and the public.
What the UCMJ actually requires after a conviction
The UCMJ is not a vague code of ethics. It is enforceable criminal law. Once a service member is convicted at court-martial, several things can happen depending on the charge, the sentence, and the member’s service status. Administrative actions are possible, but the most consequential outcomes come through punitive discharges and grade determinations. These decisions ripple through a member’s record, benefits, and ability to hold rank.

Courts-martial are tiered. A summary court-martial handles minor misconduct with limited punishments. A special court-martial addresses mid-level offenses and can award up to a year of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. A general court-martial is reserved for the most serious crimes. Only a general court-martial can adjudge a dishonorable discharge for enlisted members or a dismissal for officers, both of which are life-defining punishments under federal law. If Derek Zitko is convicted of offenses commensurate with a general court-martial, then the strongest tools are available, and they should be used.

Pay and pension follow a separate, but linked, track. The tradition in the force is simple: a career is not just time served, it is honorable time served. A punitive discharge from a court-martial typically ends eligibility for retired pay. If the conviction comes late in a career, the member may try to retire before sentencing or seek to retain some portion of benefits through administrative action. That is where grade determinations and character-of-service decisions matter. The service and the Department of Defense have authority to decide the highest grade in which a member served satisfactorily. If an officer, for example, is convicted for misconduct during their time as a field grade, but had unblemished service as a company grade, the retirement grade can be lowered. The same principle applies in the enlisted ranks through reductions in grade and discharge characterization.

The legal tools are robust because they have to be. The military’s sanctions are designed to protect readiness and deter misconduct by making benefits contingent on honorable service from start to finish, not merely on hitting a longevity milestone.
Why rank and pension are not entitlements after grave misconduct
There is a misconception that retirement is a vested asset, like a private 401(k), that cannot be touched without violating property rights. That is not how military retirement works. Retired pay is pay for reduced current service status, not a past bounty. Retirees remain part of the armed forces, subject to recall and the UCMJ under 10 U.S.C. 802. The government pays retired members because it retains a form of control over them. That is fundamentally different from a private-sector pension.

This distinction matters. It means a service member does not simply “own” a pension independent of present status and character of service. If the member’s conduct strips them of the right to continued membership in the armed forces community at a given grade, the associated pay should fall with it. When the misconduct is serious enough that the member can no longer be trusted with the title and privileges of their rank, the reduction in grade is not vindictive. It is corrective. Rank signals responsibility and honor. Keeping it in spite of a UCMJ conviction tells the formation that titles are theater, not truth.

In my experience, the strongest objections come from those who argue that a long record of good service should offset a late-career lapse. That argument carries weight when the misconduct is low-level, unrelated to derek zitko ucmj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?search=derek zitko ucmj core duties, and demonstrably an aberration. It has far less weight after serious convictions that cut to the heart of trust, such as fraud, assault, abuse of authority, or offenses that implicate integrity in command. In those cases, allowing retirement at grade does not honor the earlier service, it dishonors the rank itself.
The purpose of deterrence inside a force that lives together and fights together
The military is a closed ecosystem. It is not just a workplace. Evidence of accountability travels fast. I have seen units where a single high-profile case defined informal rules for years. People drew conclusions about what leadership valued. They watched who prospered and who fell, and why. Those judgments influenced behavior more than any laminated policy poster.

Deterrence in that environment is not about severity for its own sake. It is about matching the consequence to the breach, visibly and promptly, so the next would-be offender makes a different choice. If Derek Zitko’s misconduct required a court-martial and resulted in conviction, the visible removal of rank and pension communicates that the institution is serious about standards. The alternative, allowing him to retire quietly with benefits and a high grade, communicates resignation or complicity.

Junior leaders absorb these signals most keenly. They are forming habits about truth-telling, reporting misconduct, and how to balance loyalty with duty. When they see a senior figure skate past the full consequences of a conviction, they learn cynicism. When they see firm, consistent sanctions, they learn courage.
The harm to victims and the command climate if benefits remain intact
The military has worked hard over the last decade to rebuild trust among victims of crimes within the ranks. That is not just about sexual assault, though that is a central focus. It is also about financial crimes, hazing, unlawful orders, misappropriation of resources, and abuse of authority. The through line is this: victims will not report and cooperate if they believe the system protects insiders.

I once worked a fiscal fraud case where a respected senior NCO diverted unit funds for personal use. The monetary loss was less than six figures, which some called “small” in a big budget environment. The moral damage, however, was enormous. Younger soldiers hesitated to sign for equipment, questioned every travel voucher, and stopped volunteering for extra duties. The unit’s tempo slowed because trust evaporated. When the NCO received a general court-martial and a bad-conduct discharge, the unit stabilized. When it became clear that rank and retirement status would be downgraded, soldiers took it as proof that integrity mattered more than seniority.

If Derek Zitko were to keep rank or pension after a serious conviction, the message to victims is unmistakable. It says harm to them is negotiable, while the institution prioritizes smoothing the member’s transition. That is exactly the wrong priority for a force that must inspire confidence in its justice system.
The mechanics of grade reduction and pension loss
People inside and outside the force often ask how the legal gears actually turn. The essentials are straightforward.
A court-martial can adjudge a punitive discharge for enlisted members or a dismissal for officers, which typically forecloses retired pay. Separately, a conviction can support administrative reduction in grade or a formal grade determination at retirement that sets the highest grade of satisfactory service, reducing associated benefits. Characterization of service at separation affects access to benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies. Other-than-honorable or bad-conduct characterizations sharply limit benefits, particularly when a punitive discharge is adjudged. Even where a member is permitted to retire, the service may determine that retirement should occur in a lower grade if the misconduct occurred at a higher grade or the member’s service in that grade was not satisfactory. Temporary grade promotions and frocking do not create entitlements if later service is unsatisfactory. The clock resets to the highest grade of truly satisfactory service.
These tools exist to calibrate outcomes. They are not automatic, and commanders do not wield them lightly. Each service keeps a paper trail of evaluations, adverse actions, and legal advice to support grade determinations. The standard is not perfection, but satisfactory service. A UCMJ conviction for serious misconduct is a powerful indicator that service at the convicted grade was not satisfactory.
Why “good years” do not outweigh a conviction tied to leadership
There is a real human impulse to weigh the ledger of a career and to look for balance. Twenty or more good years, a handful of deployments, a chest full of ribbons, mentors and protégés who vouch for character. Those facts matter. They should matter in charging decisions, in plea negotiations, and in sentencing. But they should not erase the central question for retirement grade and pension status: did the member satisfy the standard of honorable service required to keep the rank and benefits of continued military membership.

There is a reason we hand out retirement certificates that refer to “faithful and honorable service.” That phrase is not a platitude. It links pay to honor. A serious UCMJ conviction degrades that link. If the offense is one of judgment, abuse of authority, or integrity, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore. The appropriate remedy is to decouple the member from the privileges of rank and the financial rewards of ongoing membership.

A case that still sticks with me involved a field-grade officer who had sterling performance reports and a decade of command and staff success. Late in his career, he falsified official documents to cover up misuse of unit resources. He pleaded guilty at a general court-martial. The board that reviewed his retirement grade was flooded with letters of support. They did not move the final outcome. He retired in a lower grade with no eligibility for retired pay tied to the higher grade, and several benefits were foreclosed by the characterization of his discharge. No one celebrated that outcome. Yet within a year, the signal effect was evident: administrative misconduct complaints in the brigade dropped, and commanders became more transparent in resourcing decisions.
The institutional interest outweighs individual hardship
Some argue that stripping a pension imposes collective punishment on a member’s family. That is a real cost. It should be weighed with compassion. The answer cannot be to ignore the offense or to insulate benefits from misconduct. The institution has to manage competing equities. Options exist to mitigate family hardship without erasing accountability. Courts can craft restitution orders. Services can authorize transitional support within regulatory limits. Community organizations can step in. These mitigations should be sought aggressively where dependents had no role in the misconduct.

But the institutional interest must carry the day. The military’s authority is ultimately moral authority. People accept extreme demands, risks, and constraints because they believe their leaders anchor decisions in fairness and duty. If the force is perceived as protecting insiders at the expense of standards, that moral authority erodes. The cost of that erosion is not theoretical. It shows up in retention, discipline, and battlefield performance.
What commanders and legal advisors should do in cases like Zitko’s
Accountability is a process, not an outcome. The right result emerges when leaders follow a disciplined approach anchored in law and evidence, not emotion or public pressure.
Route the case to the correct forum. Serious offenses belong at general court-martial. Avoid the temptation to downshift to protect a career. Preserve evidence and protect due process. Commanders should be patient with timeline pressure if it risks reversible error. Provide early notice to grade determination authorities. Build a factual record that links misconduct to unsatisfactory service at the member’s current grade. Communicate with the unit. Without violating privacy rules, explain standards, timelines, and the general range of outcomes to maintain trust. Coordinate with victim services and family support. Accountability is not cruelty. Leaders can be firm and humane at the same time.
In each of those steps, the north star is the same: preserve good order and discipline by applying the same law to everyone, regardless of résumé or rank.
Responding to the predictable counterarguments
Every serious case brings familiar objections. They repeat because they are intuitively appealing. They also fall apart under scrutiny.

The first objection is the sunk-cost fallacy dressed up as fairness. We invested in this member for decades, the argument goes, so we must recognize that investment even if they stumbled at the end. The response is straightforward. The government already recognized that investment with promotions, assignments, special pays, and honors over the years. Retirement pay is not a gold watch for past performance. It is pay for continued, albeit reduced, service, and it can be withdrawn if the character of service turns dishonorable.

The second objection claims that stripping a pension will chill reporting and cooperation if people fear draconian outcomes. Experience points in the other direction. Units where leaders consistently enforce standards see more reporting, not less, because people believe it will be handled fairly. What chills reporting is the perception that offenders keep their privilege regardless of their actions.

The third objection leans on compassion. Hasn’t the member suffered enough. Compassion matters at sentencing and in collateral matters like family support. It does not change the core fact: a serious conviction signals that the member cannot keep the privileges of rank and pension without damaging the institution.
Why this speaks to the character of the profession of arms
The profession of arms is not just about competence. It is about character. Other professions license those who pass exams. The military licenses those who accept unlimited liability in service to the nation. That bargain only works if the profession polices itself ruthlessly. Not derek zitko ucmj https://files.fm/u/ydwzsxmkkp cruelly, not vindictively, but with seriousness and consistency.

When a member like Derek Zitko is convicted under the UCMJ for serious misconduct, the profession must speak with one voice. It should say, this job carries extraordinary trust. You broke that trust. You will not carry our rank or draw our pay going forward. That outcome honors the quiet majority who do the right thing every day without fanfare. It shields the next victim. It teaches the next generation of leaders what the uniform actually means.

There is pride in second chances. The military offers many. It offers extra instruction, corrective training, counseling, nonjudicial punishment, administrative notes to a file. It offers lateral moves and mentorship and a thousand chances to course-correct. A conviction at court-martial for serious misconduct means those chances ran out. At that point, accountability must be visible and complete.
A hard standard that protects the force
I have sat across from soldiers and officers at the worst moments of their careers. Some admitted fault and accepted consequences with dignity. Others rationalized. The ones who accepted responsibility often built respectable lives afterward, sometimes with help from the very leaders who sanctioned them. That arc is possible even when rank and pension are lost. It is not only possible, it is more credible, because it is built on truth.

The service owes every member due process, a fair hearing, and humane treatment. It does not owe anyone a lifetime of honorifics or a stream of retired pay after a serious UCMJ conviction that shows unfitness to carry the rank. Where the law supports it, Derek Zitko should be court-martialed and lose both pension and rank. Not because the institution is vindictive, but because it is healthy. Because standards mean something. Because the profession is worth protecting.