| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Military retirees can still be court-martialed, Supreme Court affirms |
| 2019-02-26 |
| [Mil Times] The Supreme Court decided last week not to review the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed and convicted of sexual assault in 2015, upholding the Pentagon’s authority to prosecute retirees for crimes they commit even after leaving the service. When you retire it's not the same thing as a discharge. You go into retired reserve. You can be recalled to active status or request reactivation. I worked with a lieutenant colonel in 2004-05 who was on oxygen, but who had requested recall post-9/11. My own request was declined since my background was Russian and Vietnamese and my security clearance had been expired for almost ten years. The decision leaves the possibility open for retirees to face punishment, such as sailors involved in the Navy’s "Fat Leonard" scandal and retired Army Gen. David Petraeus ‐ who pleaded guilty to providing classified information to his biographer. On Feb. 19, the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case of retired Marine Staff Sgt. Steven M. Larrabee, who left the Corps after 20 years of service but continued to reside in Iwakuni, Japan, his final duty station, where he managed two local bars. On Nov. 15, 2015, after a night of drinking, Larrabee sexually assaulted a bartender at one of the bars he managed and used his cell phone to record the incident. Larrabee "was subsequently convicted by a court-martial, pursuant to his pleas, on one count of sexual assault and one count of indecent recording in violation of Articles 120 and 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice," according to court records. The military judge sentenced Larrabee to eight years’ confinement, a reprimand, and a dishonorable discharge. As part of a pre-trial agreement, however, his prison term was reduced to 10 months. In September 2018, Larrabee filed a petition for his conviction to be overturned on appeal based on the argument that he should have been tried as a civilian. However, the Supreme Court has denied that appeal, upholding the past standard that retirees are still subject to the UCMJ. |
| Posted by:Unitch Angomoque7343 |
| #6 I mean, shoot, hip-pocket orders are one thing, but this...a bit much. |
| Posted by: Clem 2019-02-26 20:51 |
| #5 As a retiree I understand I am subject to recall to active duty. My question is how as a member of the Retired Reserve I am subject to the UCMJ in my daily life in my retired status. As for the snarky comment..... |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2019-02-26 19:28 |
| #4 If I am still subject to the UCMJ, why am I not eligible to all the benefits of active service? It effects 'retirees' not prior service personnel. As noted in the piece, retirees go into the retired reserve subject to recall. You are on standby. Retirees get a monthly check, get commissary and AAFES access, space availability on transportation, some medical coverage (certainly not like it was in the 60s and 70s, but neither do the families of active duty personnel). You just don't get orders shipping you to different 'exotic' locations every three years or so, you get to choose your career specialty and any job related management to work for or with. Till they call. Back in the early 70s when I was added to the rolls, I signed a Regular Army accession. I read it. Said I could be recalled to active duty at anytime afterwards. Did you read your contract carefully? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2019-02-26 14:29 |
| #3 If I am still subject to the UCMJ, why am I not eligible to all the benefits of active service? Why Medicare and Tricare-for-life as the supplement, (Which causes my wife and I to pay over $2500 a year in SS deductions, and $11 copays for meds, {so much for free healthcare for life, the 1968 promise when I enlisted in the USMC}) Why no legal, or travel benefits, etc. You can't have it both ways, either I'm subject to all the rules of active duty and get all the benefits, or I'm an annuitant, outside the umbrella of service? You can't be some of each? At least not in a place where honest contracts apply.... |
| Posted by: noMoreBS 2019-02-26 13:49 |
| #2 They've finally discovered a method for controlling those pesky retirees. Welcome to the Deep State, Police State division. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2019-02-26 08:12 |
| #1 Unmentioned was the question of 'who' prosecutes. Often times the question is rather local law enforcement or military enforcement is to be employed. Unless unusual circumstances are involved the SOP is to defer to civil authority upon request. In 'civilized' areas, the question is who can render the stiffest punishment. The individual is still protected against double jeopardy. The subject may not be prosecuted in both courts for the same crime. However, military law is not civil law. Something that is not a crime under civil law may be a crime under military law. Thus the associated events to the crime may fall under military law that are not covered or prosecuted under civil law. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2019-02-26 05:49 |