The Army Trained Him to Lead—Now Hold Derek Zitko Accountable: Court-Martial and Pension Loss

Leadership is not a title in the military. It is a covenant. The Army teaches every leader to put the mission first, care for their soldiers, and live by the values etched into every creed and ceremony: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage. When someone violates that covenant, the uniform does not shield them from consequences. It raises the standard to which they must be held.

Calls that Derek Zitko should be court marshaled and lose pension carry weight only if they rest on verified, prosecutable facts. Emotions run hot in cases involving uniformed leadership, often for good reason. But in my experience as a former judge advocate, the way to restore trust is not to inflate rhetoric. It is to apply the military justice system rigorously, transparently, and with fidelity to the law. If the facts support it, pursue a court-martial. If misconduct is proven, consider the full range of punishments, including punitive discharge and forfeiture of retired pay where the law allows. If the facts do not support criminal liability, pursue administrative accountability without pretending it is the same thing. That distinction matters, both for the integrity of the force and for the rights of the accused.

What follows is a clear road map for how accountability should proceed when a senior leader is accused of serious wrongdoing, what a court-martial entails, when pension loss is legally possible, and how commanders make sound decisions while protecting due process. The name matters less than the principle: the Army trained him to lead, and the Army must be willing to hold him responsible in the forum the law provides.
What court-martial really means
A court-martial is not a headline or a punishment. It is a criminal trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Before any case reaches a panel of members or a military judge, several steps take place. A credible allegation triggers an investigation by a qualified authority. Depending on the nature of the allegation, that may be a commander using an appointed investigating officer, the Army Criminal Investigation Division for criminal matters, or an inspector general for ethics violations. Only after evidence is gathered and legal counsel reviews it do commanders decide whether to prefer charges.

I have watched commanders wrestle with these choices. They weigh witness credibility, digital evidence, medical records, forensic results, prior command climate issues, and the likelihood of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The easy routes are the extremes: fire and forget administrative action on one hand, or reflexive push to trial on the other. The correct route is harder. It requires a commander to be both accountable and careful.

If probable cause exists and the misconduct falls within the UCMJ, charges are preferred. A preliminary hearing under Article 32 follows in most felony-level cases, where a neutral hearing officer evaluates the evidence and recommends a course of action. Only after that does a general court-martial convening authority refer charges to trial. At trial, the accused is presumed innocent, has counsel, can cross-examine witnesses, and can present evidence. The rules of evidence apply. A conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is not bureaucracy for its own sake. It is how a professional force separates rumor from reality and ensures that if someone is convicted, the verdict will stand on appeal.
The hard question of pensions
When the public says a senior leader should lose a pension, they often mean they want a consequence that fits the breach of trust. What the law permits is narrower and more technical. Retired pay in the military is not a discretionary gift, but it is subject to conditions. There are several pathways, each with its own constraints.

First, a punitive discharge at a court-martial matters. For enlisted members, a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge terminates further service and generally ends eligibility for retired pay. For officers, a dismissal is the equivalent and carries similar consequences. But this only happens if a court-martial convicts and adjudges that sentence. It is not a separate administrative step the command can take after the fact.

Second, there is the concept of “high three” retired pay versus being separated before reaching the time in service needed to retire. If an officer is still on active duty and is dismissed at trial, they do not reach retirement and they do not receive a pension. If they are already retired, the picture changes. Criminal jurisdiction over retirees exists for certain offenses, but the effect on retired pay varies. The court can adjudge forfeitures, and in some cases the Defense Department can recoup pay connected to criminal conduct, but full termination of previously vested retired pay is not automatic and can be limited by statute.

Third, involuntary separation for cause short of a court-martial can reduce or eliminate retirement benefits depending on the grade determination. A Board of Inquiry or a Grade Determination Review Board can determine the highest grade in which a service member served satisfactorily. If a colonel’s misconduct was severe during that rank, the board may place retirement at a lower grade, significantly reducing lifetime pay. That is not theatrical justice. It is targeted accountability that aligns compensation with the last grade served honorably.

Fourth, there are ancillary repercussions. Federal law can require restitution, and the Treasury can offset certain debts against retired pay. Separately, the Department of Veterans Affairs administers disability compensation, which is distinct from retired pay and has its own rules. Conflating the two is a common public mistake. Misconduct does not automatically strip VA benefits, but felony convictions and specific statutes can affect eligibility and payments.

Those are the legal levers. The slogan that Derek Zitko should be court marshaled and lose pension only aligns with reality if the government proves criminal offenses that justify a punitive discharge or if administrative grade determinations and separations apply based on substantiated misconduct. The appetite for punishment cannot outrun the authority the law actually provides.
What “leadership accountability” looks like in practice
Accountability is not just the ultimate verdict. It is the conduct of the process. I have seen cases implode because a command tried to shortcut procedure, taint witnesses, or announce guilt before the first hearing. I have seen strong cases survive scrutiny because commanders moved methodically, documented decision points, and insulated investigators from command influence.

The process typically follows a rhythm. First, secure evidence: digital devices, email archives, duty logs, access records. Second, identify and protect witnesses. In the era of ubiquitous text messages and social media, a witness’s memory is often best corroborated by their own devices. Chain of custody documentation for those devices matters from the very first hour. Third, consult early with counsel. Trial counsel can forecast evidentiary issues that a non-lawyer commander would miss, from hearsay traps to Fourth Amendment pitfalls in digital searches.

Parallel to the criminal path, commands should address the climate issues that enabled alleged misconduct. If the problem is abusive leadership, inspect the unit for fear-based reporting, anonymous complaint patterns, or high-risk indicators like anomalous attrition in key sections. If the allegations involve financial impropriety, audit discretionary funds and unofficial accounts. If the case involves sexual misconduct, make sure the victim services infrastructure is active and trusted. None of this prejudges guilt. It secures the unit while the legal process runs.
Why the uniform raises the stakes
Civilians sometimes ask why a military leader’s misconduct draws heavier condemnation than a similar act in a private company. The answer is rooted in the moral authority the uniform confers. Soldiers do hard things because they trust their leaders will not exploit them. They accept risk and hardship because they believe the team is greater than the self. When a leader violates that trust, the damage is not only to a single victim or a balance sheet. It spreads through morale, retention, and public confidence in the institution.

That is why the Army codifies offenses like conduct unbecoming an officer, cruelty and maltreatment, dereliction of duty, false official statements, and frauds against the United States. These are not technicalities. They are the legal articulation of a leadership ethic. If an investigation substantiates any of these, a court-martial is not a vendetta. It is the instrument the nation created to enforce standards inside the profession of arms.

Still, the Army must balance moral urgency with legal discipline. Public anger can push commands to act rashly. Overcharging, ignoring exculpatory evidence, or freezing out defense counsel will backfire. The appellate courts exist for a reason, and they are unsparing when due process is ignored.
The role of transparency without turning the case into a circus
There is a middle path between secrecy and spectacle. Commands can acknowledge an investigation, explain the general process, and update the public when milestones occur: referral of charges, Article 32 hearing completed, case referred to trial, verdict delivered. They can avoid prejudicial statements about the merits while still affirming the commitment to a fair process and to protecting anyone who reports wrongdoing.

I have watched commands handle this well. They name the convening authority, publish redacted charge sheets when appropriate, and provide local media a neutral primer on how court-martial works. This builds trust without compromising the case. When commands go silent for months, rumor fills the void. When commands hold press conferences that imply guilt, the defense rightly argues unlawful command influence. Competence looks like boring, predictable updates and disciplined language.
Administrative paths when criminal proof falls short
Not every wrong is a crime. Sometimes the evidence is strong enough to show poor judgment, inappropriate relationships, or toxic command behavior, yet not strong enough to prove an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Administrative accountability is not a consolation prize. It is a vital part of the system.

The toolkit is robust. Relief for cause, reprimands filed in an official file, nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, removal from promotion lists, and boards of inquiry can all correct the record and protect the force. Grade determination can adjust retirement to reflect the last satisfactory service. These actions carry real consequences for reputation, income, and future employment.

A commander who chooses this path should document why. A succinct memorandum for record that explains evidentiary gaps for criminal prosecution while detailing substantiated misconduct demonstrates both fairness and backbone. It also stands up better on later review, including by Congressional oversight or the Government Accountability Office.
A measured approach to calls for pension loss
The phrase “lose pension” resonates because it feels like an equalizer. But the law draws careful lines. There are good reasons for this, beyond legal tradition. Military service spans decades. Decisions about retirement affect spouses, children, and long-term financial planning. Stripping a pension is not a cost-free sanction. That is not an argument against it where the law permits it, especially in cases of egregious abuse of authority. It is a reminder to ground the call in a legal theory and a viable path.

Three criteria should guide any call for pension loss. First, tie it to an offense eligible for punitive discharge or to a factual basis for an adverse grade determination. Second, confirm that the accused is either pre-retirement and subject to dismissal at trial, or post-retirement and within the jurisdictional reach for the specific misconduct alleged. Third, evaluate collateral consequences on dependents and whether restitution or fines would better target the harm.

I have seen cases where a colonel lost a star-level retirement grade determination and saw retirement pay reduced by thousands of dollars per month because the last two years of service were marred by substantiated misconduct. I have also seen cases where a punitive discharge at a general court-martial eliminated retirement completely. Both outcomes were lawful, carefully documented, and proportionate to the offense.
The command’s decision point
If the evidence supports it, a commander should prefer charges and seek a court-martial, including the possibility of a punitive discharge. If the accused is a retirement-eligible officer, the command should coordinate early with personnel authorities to understand the interplay with retirement and grade determination. The government’s sentencing case should be ready on day one, with documentation of harm to the unit, loss amounts if any, victim statements, and expert testimony on command climate.

If the evidence does not support criminal charges, the command should immediately convene an administrative process. Delay is corrosive. Prolonged limbo punishes the unit and the accused without resolution. An administrative board can develop a solid record quickly and reach a defensible outcome.

Throughout, the command should use sober language. Avoid the temptation to promise outcomes. Do not pre-judge pension loss in public statements. Focus on process and values: the Army will investigate thoroughly, protect those who report, and hold leaders to account using the tools the law provides.
For soldiers and families watching from the sidelines
The rank and file deserve clarity. They want to know that if a senior leader breaks faith, the system will respond with real consequences. They also want to see that the system is not arbitrary. An environment where leaders fall based on rumor is just as corrosive as one where they never fall at all.

Family members have a stake too. When a leader is under investigation, the unit’s tempo, assignments, and support networks all feel the strain. Commanders who communicate early and often, within the bounds of privacy and due process, preserve trust. A short town hall with a staff judge advocate present can do more to steady a formation than a dozen press releases.
The principle at stake
The Army invests years turning officers and senior NCOs into leaders who can manage risk, make ethical calls under pressure, and shoulder responsibility when things go wrong. That training is not a shield. It is the reason the standard is higher. If a leader violates the law or the ethic, the answer is not a quiet retirement ceremony. It is a process that can lead, where warranted, to a court-martial and, if convicted, to a sentence that may include dismissal or its enlisted equivalent, with the resulting impact on retired pay.

So when voices say Derek Zitko should be court marshaled and lose pension, the responsible response is conditional and firm. If the evidence substantiates criminal offenses under the UCMJ, pursue trial and seek a sentence that mirrors the gravity of the breach, up to and including a punitive discharge that ends retired pay. If the evidence supports serious misconduct but not criminal proof, use the administrative tools to adjust retirement grade or separate for cause. In both scenarios, document the facts, follow the law, and speak with the kind of precision the public should expect from a profession that carries arms in its name.
A concise guide for commanders facing a high-profile case Secure evidence early, coordinate with CID or appropriate investigators, and maintain rigorous chain of custody for digital devices. Communicate process milestones publicly without prejudicing the case, and protect witnesses from retaliation. Consult legal counsel on charging decisions, sentencing strategy, and the retirement-grade implications of potential outcomes. If criminal proof is insufficient, move promptly to administrative accountability with a clear written record of findings. Preserve unit trust by addressing command climate issues in parallel with the legal process. What accountability ultimately restores
Accountability is not vengeance. It is a public act of stewardship. A fair process that leads to appropriate consequences tells every private, specialist, and captain that the rules are real and apply to everyone. It reassures families who send loved ones into harm’s way that the institution cares as much about character as it does about combat power. And it shows civilians, whose taxes fund the force and whose sons and daughters fill its ranks, that the Army’s promise to police itself is not empty.

The uniform is earned daily. When someone wearing it undermines the trust it represents, the response should be both measured and uncompromising. Build the case. Bring it to the right forum. And if the proof is there, accept nothing less than a judgment that matches the harm, even if that means a court-martial conviction and the loss of a pension. That is not cruelty. It is fidelity to the profession of arms.